# California to build 800MW solar power plant



## got wood? (Aug 18, 2008)

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/15/business/15solar.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

"The plants will cover 12.5 square miles of central California with solar panels, and in the middle of a sunny day will generate about 800 megawatts of power, roughly equal to the size of a large coal-burning power plant or a small nuclear plant. A megawatt is enough power to run a large Wal-Mart store."


----------



## TMonter (Aug 18, 2008)

While I applaud the move I have to wonder how many tax dollars are being funneled to support the project that is privately owned. Renewables need to stand on their own if they are ever going to compete with conventional sources.


----------



## got wood? (Aug 18, 2008)

I really don't know if I agree that renewables have to stand on their own financially to be an effective alternative.  The simple fact that by many accounts we are running out of oil while at the same time increasing our demand for it (china/india/us) should be sounding huge klaxon alarms throughout the industrialized world.  We don't have the luxury of waiting around for these alternative energy sources to be profitable.  As oil is getting more and more difficult to drill and with the last of the huge wells tapped last century, the struggle for what remains will likely fuel not only incredible prices for crude, but potentially wars.

Let's also be realistic about subsidies too...oil and coal are largely `unofficially' subsidized through sweetheart backroom deals and lobbyists who secure special treatment and terms for their constituents to ensure they are and remain competitive.


----------



## flyingcow (Aug 19, 2008)

I wonder if the NIMBY crowd will allow this to happen? And don't forget about the crowd that doesn't want the extra transmission lines  running thru the neighborhood. Oh yeah.. how about the hikers and ruining their view? Don't forget about the animal/bug/etc activists .They'll have a say about this. :smirk: I'm just sayin'....... :coolsmile:


----------



## JustWood (Aug 19, 2008)

Drove by one of those last year just south of Vegas in California last Dec. while visiting the inlaws. It was in the middle of the desert and didn't affect anyone.  Was a massive installation.  Build them I say.


----------



## Dune (Aug 19, 2008)

Bring em on, the more the merrier. Then use some of the electricity to crack water into hydrogen, compress it, and use that for automobiles, if you must have an internal combustion engine. That would be the only truly green fuel for cars. About subsidies, don't you think the oil companys are subsidized even today? Ever heard of Dick Cheney? Whatever subsidizing it takes, lets do it. Its a little late for standing on principles here.


----------



## Telco (Aug 19, 2008)

Tell the environmentalists that protest a solar installation that their proposal will not receive any hearing unless they first eliminate the need for such a plant, ie they stop using all electrical power.  Once they stop using any electrical power, and that includes the use of any electrical device like a TV camera that gets their view out, we won't hear from them anymore.  

I welcome this, would welcome such an installation in my area, and feel that there's plenty of views to be had that we can afford to give some up.  That being said, I say why waste the land on JUST a solar installation?  Nothing I saw there would prevent them from setting them underneath a large building.  Multiple office buildings would work great here.  Any industry that does not require in the air emissions would work.  Building such installations on top of buildings would be a twofer.  Imagine if every Wal Mart Super Center, if every strip mall, if every large factory had a solar installation on top of it.  Imagine if these solar installations covered not only the buildings, but the parking lots.  We'd have more power than we'd know what to do with then, if 12 acres makes 800MW.  We'd have to come up with a way to store it at night.  

As far as NIMBY goes, I wouldn't mind seeing a nuke plant built in the Tulsa area where I live.  A few of these solar installations would be better though.


----------



## Turbozcs2003 (Aug 19, 2008)

Dunebilly said:
			
		

> Bring em on, the more the merrier. Then use some of the electricity to crack water into hydrogen, compress it, and use that for automobiles, if you must have an internal combustion engine. That would be the only truly green fuel for cars. About subsidies, don't you think the oil companys are subsidized even today? Ever heard of Dick Cheney? Whatever subsidizing it takes, lets do it. Its a little late for standing on principles here.



I doubt the oil companies are that highly subsidized, at least the good guys who are US based(Exxon/Mobil SHell etc) not the bad guys like Citgo who were stolen from their stock holders buy Chavez when he nationalized errr took over Citgo.

Anyhow do you mind paying 5x for your electric to subsidize all the capitol cost for all these renewables??  

I think we need cost competitive alternatives. Also just so you know, Solar, wind etc cannot be counted on for peak load so the amount of generation really doesnt go down. When you get home and the sun sets and you have your AC cranked and the wind isnt blowing, there had better be enough generation capacity(nuke, oil, gas coal) to meet the peak demand or faster than you can say load sheading you will be in a hot, dark house


----------



## webbie (Aug 19, 2008)

Turbo, the oil companies have been HIGHLY subsidized, by everything from the construction of highway systems (with public money and often by eminent domain) to the current ethanol craze (ethanol is added to gas and makes the cost less due to the 50 cent per gallon the government gives them).

More directly, there are tax credits which are quite massive - put in force when oil was 25-30 a gallon - to promote domestic drilling. The idea was to remove these credits if oil went up in price....because you certainly don't need the taxpayers paying the oil companies to drill for $120 oil. 

But, guess what? The tax credits are still in force today!

After we get done with all the direct subsidies, we get to a long list of indirect ones. The oil companies do not have to pay the real cost for the air and water pollution they cause, nor for the deaths and suffering caused by associated disease. A look at the abandoned fields will show you that they don't have to put land back in pristine condition after they are through. When our leaders tell us they must protect the pipelines and shipping routes, who is paying? We are! In fact, some have estimated the real cost of oil at over double what we currently pay. 

I have relatively few complaints about oil companies - they do exactly what is in their best interests...and that is to lobby to get their way and make as big a profit as possible. But for us to say that a new technology - out of the box - has to immediately beat one which has been subsidized to the tune of TRILLIONS of dollars of infrastructure and tax credits....is just plain silly.

If you or I endeavor to start a new business, a new family, a new life or any other major change - we generally need some help and some time to do so. It's pretty clear that solar is on the brink of being competitive - to get over the top we need massive projects like that which allow economy of scale (production, R&D;, etc.) to kick in.

I've seen the solar credits yanked before - Ronald Raygun did it in 1981 and destroyed an industry which had already installed millions of square feet of panels. I would not be surprised to see it happen again....remember, the oil companies (and by extension, Bush, Cheney, etc.) don't like renewables, especially solar. There is very little chance that the same oil companies will be the leaders in the new technologies.


----------



## TMonter (Aug 19, 2008)

However two wrongs don't make a right Web. Not to mention solar does not compete with oil because it's not a transportation fuel. I agree that subsidy has to end for all companies, but to make the same mistake again is to do the same thing and expect different results.


----------



## Turbozcs2003 (Aug 19, 2008)

Webmaster said:
			
		

> Turbo, the oil companies have been HIGHLY subsidized, by everything from the construction of highway systems (with public money and often by eminent domain) to the current ethanol craze (ethanol is added to gas and makes the cost less due to the 50 cent per gallon the government gives them).
> 
> More directly, there are tax credits which are quite massive - put in force when oil was 25-30 a gallon - to promote domestic drilling. The idea was to remove these credits if oil went up in price....because you certainly don't need the taxpayers paying the oil companies to drill for $120 oil.
> 
> ...




Please tell me how much direct $$$ the oil companies receive??? Or are you implying without these subsidies oil would not be competive agains solar??

Maybe they(big oil) get tax write offs when they drill dry holes in those awesome leases they currently receive

Per solar, why hasnt all the R&D;money poured into them payed off where they would be cost competive with oil, coal, nukes, NG  genration etc

Bottom line is the taxpayer cannot subsidize a technology into profitability.

Reagan was dead right pulling the subsidies, in 27 years the solar industry has not gotten its act together where the technology is cost compettive.


----------



## webbie (Aug 19, 2008)

TMonter said:
			
		

> However two wrongs don't make a right Web. Not to mention solar does not compete with oil because it's not a transportation fuel. I agree that subsidy has to end for all companies, but to make the same mistake again is to do the same thing and expect different results.



Solar produces electric, which by any measure will be a part of future transportation (electric cars, trains).....

As far as different results.....well, the oil subsidies helped build us the largest networks of roads in the world, amazingly affordable cars, etc. - so if solar can provide those same results for a subsidy, that would be great.

Turbo, there is a lot of reading on the web and elsewhere about the true cost of oil.......here's one by a former member of Mr. Rayguns cabinet:
http://www.evworld.com/article.cfm?storyid=1018

Obviously it does not matter if you give Exxon cold hard cash or protect their shipping lanes for free......or give them large deductions and credits for dry wells, etc. (last time I heard, when I fail at an endeavor, I have to pay for it myself).......any way you look at it, it is the government favoring one industry over another.

I happen to believe in the idea of graduated tax credits in order to help create technologies which benefit our society. My point is that these should not be yanked from solar and wind, etc. because of oil company lobbyists (who are the ones pushing the GOP for drilling). That's no way to make national energy policy.


----------



## Telco (Aug 19, 2008)

Funny, people point towards Bush as being an oil man and anti-renewable, yet his personal home is one of the most earth-friendly places you'll find outside the Begley compound.  Bush in his personal life is far, far, far more eco-friendly than Al "what a freakin hypocrite" Gore, the environmental poster boy.


----------



## webbie (Aug 19, 2008)

TurboZ said:
			
		

> Bottom line is the taxpayer cannot subsidize a technology into....



Weapons for the American Revolution (and since)
Space
Railroads
Ship Building
Car Making
Steel
Coal
Agriculture
Nuclear

I could go on, but I really doubt that is the "Bottom Line"....sounds more like a Talking Point. The government does and has subsidized MANY of our industries and pursuits into either usefulness or profitability. 

The only part of this worth discussing is whether the technologies we are talking about are the ones deserving of this help. Ethanol is an example of one that is not, solar and wind are examples which might get over the hump by some help and in the end save us all $$$ and provide cleaner air and water.


----------



## webbie (Aug 19, 2008)

Telco said:
			
		

> Funny, people point towards Bush as being an oil man and anti-renewable, yet his personal home is one of the most earth-friendly places you'll find outside the Begley compound.  Bush in his personal life is far, far, far more eco-friendly than Al "what a freakin hypocrite" Gore, the environmental poster boy.



Is Air Force One now gliding?

Just joking. Unfortunately, whether he lives in a cave means very little - the amount of aviation fuel he uses going to a fund raiser is WAY more than energy we each use in a year.  

I'll eat my 10 gallon hat if he does not fly around in private jets after his term is out. 

And I don't blame him! It's too easy to find fault with individuals and not look at the big picture. My problem with GW is not his personal life style nor his flying around in AF1. It is that he has done everything in his power to make more money for the oil and energy companies, which not even have the "balls" to ask the American people to conserve.....not even now. That is a great missed opportunity, IMHO.


----------



## Telco (Aug 19, 2008)

I can't fault him for doing it when he gets out of office either.  I only fault Gore because be became an environmental crusader, yet won't even call the power company to switch his houses to renewable energy.  If Gore's crusade were world peace, nobody would say a word about his energy usage.  

Bush actually did do something to help cut energy usage, he did sign the CAFE standard increase.  It's already spurring some changes.  I don't know what all the automakers are doing, but GM is now considering smaller engines for their sports cars, and they are about to unleash a new turbodiesel for full size trucks.  I'm really hyped about that 4.5L turbodiesel, it's about 1/3 smaller than the Duramax which will get in the low 20s unloaded and only loses about 3-4MPG when pulling a super heavy load.  With the smaller version, we should see full size trucks and SUVs in the 30+MPG.  Imagine that, a Suburban getting close to the same MPG as a Toyota Corolla.


----------



## Dune (Aug 20, 2008)

Bush did something alright. One of the first things he did was eliminate the increased mileage standards that were to take place in 2000. Because of this, The big three carmakers are going broke, while Honda and Toyota are building car factories here. Why? Because they just are not as stupid. One of the other great things Bush did was to overide the state of California's higher gas mileage requirements, claiming the feds rules would be sufficient. Anyone remember Kenny-boy? Can anyone be so pigheaded as to actualy beleive that Bush is some kind of good guy?


----------



## Telco (Aug 20, 2008)

Dunebilly said:
			
		

> Bush did something alright. One of the first things he did was eliminate the increased mileage standards that were to take place in 2000. Because of this, The big three carmakers are going broke, while Honda and Toyota are building car factories here. Why? Because they just are not as stupid.



Bull.  The big 3 aren't going broke because of a supposed elimination of a mileage standard.  They are going broke because they are management heavy, unresponsive monsters that put out shoddy, overpriced products with little attempt at customer satisfaction after the sale.  They will put out a product that nobody wants, or will screw up something that people would buy, then wonder why they aren't selling anything.  The Japs are doing well because they respond quickly to the market, put out a high quality product and care about their customers after the sale.  This has nothing to do with federal laws.  Put the blame where it belongs, with the automakers.  Dodge is offering as much as a 44 percent discount on their full size trucks right now, and I'll bet they are still making a profit.



			
				Dunebilly said:
			
		

> One of the other great things Bush did was to overide the state of California's higher gas mileage requirements, claiming the feds rules would be sufficient.



Yes, this was a great thing.  Bush was correct to override California's mileage requirements.  Part of the problem we have with high fuel costs and high automobile prices today is the feds allowing individual states set their own standards.  Even individual cities can set their own fuel formulations.  Allowing different standards in different places drives up everybody's costs.  This also threatens all automakers, not just the domestics, because when you allow stupid crap to drive up costs you start driving businesses out of business.  When a business goes broke, their employees lose jobs, and their suppliers lose jobs.  The correct way to change emissions standards is to do it at the federal level, same with fuel formulations.  People don't like this because they have to be able to prove the need at the federal level, unlike at the California CARB level where the mandates only require someone to whine to get a tougher standard through.  



			
				Dunebilly said:
			
		

> Anyone remember Kenny-boy? Can anyone be so pigheaded as to actualy beleive that Bush is some kind of good guy?



No idea who Kenny-boy might be, but don't mistake me for a Bush cheerleader.  I simply believe that if you are going to place blame, place it where it is due.  Bush is doing what he thinks is best for the whole nation according to his own views.  Same way Clinton did, same way Bush Sr did, same way Reagan did, so on and so forth.  Some folks simply think that because he ain't "their boy" that he can do no right, and will find fault and overlook success no matter what.  Apparently this Kenny-boy is one who would not see any bad in Bush, just as you can see no good.  Nobody is perfect, not Bush, Clinton, McCain or Obama, they all have their good points and their bad points.  You may choose to be half blind, but I don't.  Bush's major failing in his 8 year term:  going back into Iraq without sufficient strength, which was proven by the effectiveness of the troop surge.  Had he gone back in with a 50 percent stronger force, we'd be several years further down the road than we are now, and be about 250 billion richer.


----------



## Dune (Aug 20, 2008)

It was not a supposed elimination. Yes , they are greedy, which is why they prefer to make large cars, trucks, SUVs, they are more profitable. That is the stupid part. People want cars with good mileage. That is why there is a waiting list to buy a prius.  The only reason Dodge is even still in business is because the feds bailed them out. Forget about that? Them Mercedes bailed them out as well. Still wasn't enough. 44% off a full size truck, sounds like a real lose/lose proposition. The consumer loses by buying a gas pig and Dodge looses by selling a product at 44% off list. "I'll bet they are still making a profit". Obviosly not, or why would they cut their prices?
      As far as it being a good thing, for California to lose it's right to set it's own emisions standards, under Bush, do you really think thats true? Because of California' seperate system, most of the clean tech. that is in use was developed. Yet the carmakers somehow survived and prospered all these years, till Bush told them something they have been doing for decades was illegal. That is why 26 states are suing the E.P.A.  The federal standards may be more "correct", but they don't mandate significant change until 2016. Do you really think we can wait that long? The federal mandate does not promote better mileage at all. It just puts it off till later. More smoke and mirrors. California wanted to do something NOW, which is why the EPA got involved. They don't want higher standards now anymore than they did in 2000, or anything else that helps the planet or the economy or anyone other than the very rich. Stop listening to Rush Limbagh.   
      Kenny-boy was President Bush's nickname for Kenneth Lay, the president of Enron, the company that fleeced California.  While I agree that the Iraq invasion was a very bad idea, it was far from his "magor failing". Bush's major failing is that he is a patsy for the megarich and has always put their needs before the good of the country as a whole, thus leading to the situation we have now, rampant un or underemployment, food and fuel cost out of control, runaway inflation, weak dollar, need I go on? Aparently, but I tire easily these days.


----------



## Telco (Aug 21, 2008)

Yes, they are still making money with a 44 percent discount, just not as much.  Do you really think it takes that much to build a truck?  They are using the same design they've been using on trucks for 75 years, frames with leaf springs in the back and coil springs or torsion bars in the front.  They aren't going to sell the trucks at a loss, they would dismantle the trucks and stock the parts for repairs before they would do that.  I agree with you on the greed but not much else.

Yes, I think it's true that removing the state's ability to set its own rules on emissions is a good thing.  Always have, always will.  If California wants tougher rules, then California should be working through the EPA and Congress to make it happen.  When the rules are changed, they should be a uniform rule across the nation.  This way a car that is sold in Kansas is the same as a car sold in California.  Every time you add special requirements that don't apply everywhere, unnecessary costs are added.  Same with the other emissions crap, gasoline, ect.  Would it not be better to have tougher emissions laws and tougher gasoline requirements nationwide rather than in just specific areas?  Even if we adopted the toughest of the standards, having them be uniform across the nation would ultimately cost less than the patchwork system we have now.

I see on Kennyboy.  I also see you blaming Bush for that, when the whole thing got started under Clinton.  Neither President was responsible for what California did to themselves.  All Bush said was "You got yourself into it, you get yourself out of it."  If you are going to blame Bush for what California did to themselves because he didn't bail them out, then you also have to blame Clinton for not stopping it to begin with, not that you'll do that.  I blame the heavily liberal Cali Democratic legislature for passing the legislation to begin with.  They saw only what they wanted to happen, ie lower costs for the consumers, and disregarded everything else, ie the law of supply and demand, and the nature of greed.  A well thought out piece of legislation would have included provisions for dealing with supply problems, including raising rates if necessary.

I never said going back into Iraq was a bad idea, I thought it was an excellent idea.  I faulted him for his execution of the plan, by not going in with enough troops.  Had he not gone back into Iraq, we'd still be flying sorties in Iraq for a billion a month with no end in sight like under Clinton, perhaps even setting up a Cuba policy where we wait Hussein dies on his own.  Instead, we can now put an end to this, looks like in the next year with a victory provided Obama doesn't get elected, forfeit and pull the US out willy-nilly.  But does this mean it's Clinton's fault?  No, he can only be blamed for inaction.  The original fault would lay with Bush Sr for not finishing what he was forced to start to begin with.  Had he removed Hussein at that time, we might have already been out of Iraq and been done with it.


----------



## Dune (Aug 21, 2008)

This certainly isn't the apropriate setting for for discussing the merits of this 800 billion plus (so far) act of war against a soveriegn nation, where we have no business being in the first place, and clearly we are at opposite ends of the spectrum on this. I respect your opinion and respectfully disagee. As far as the feds deserving more power than they should have, don't worry, they are taking it whether it is proper or not. Ever heard of states rights? I am not blaming Bush for what the theives at Enron did. Just that they were able to get away with it because he is one of them.  Thievery is thievery regardless of who the perpetrator is. Just like the GOP's present candidate. Mcain was one of the Keating-five, five senators caught with their fingers in the cookie jar, during the S.&L;. collapse of the mid-eighties. My family lost 350K that time around and I had friends who lost much more. Now you want that thief to be president? To all the familys who lost children in this needless war, started only for the as yet unseen profits of the oil companies, I apologise from the bottom of my bleeding heart.


----------



## Telco (Aug 21, 2008)

Dunebilly said:
			
		

> This certainly isn't the apropriate setting for for discussing the merits of this 800 billion plus (so far) act of war against a soveriegn nation, where we have no business being in the first place, and clearly we are at opposite ends of the spectrum on this. I respect your opinion and respectfully disagee. As far as the feds deserving more power than they should have, don't worry, they are taking it whether it is proper or not. Ever heard of states rights? I am not blaming Bush for what the theives at Enron did. Just that they were able to get away with it because he is one of them.  Thievery is thievery regardless of who the perpetrator is. Just like the GOP's present candidate. Mcain was one of the Keating-five, five senators caught with their fingers in the cookie jar, during the S.&L;. collapse of the mid-eighties. My family lost 350K that time around and I had friends who lost much more. Now you want that thief to be president? To all the familys who lost children in this needless war, started only for the as yet unseen profits of the oil companies, I apologise from the bottom of my bleeding heart.



You're correct, this isn't the place.  This should have been limited to the gigantic power plants going up, but people these days are so charged up on politics it bleeds into places it shouldn't be.  We definitely have a difference on the Iraq war, which actually began in 1990, that we were sucked into due to treaty requirements with Kuwait.  Sorry about the huge loss your family took, I myself lost some 200 grand when another company took a sudden dump due to similar shady practices.  And all it takes to divert the discussion is "Thanks to (politician)..." or "If it weren't for (politician) we'd..." to get both sides worked up.  It isn't that I want McCain to be President, it's that he's the best choice of the two that are running.  If you want to see some REAL problems in the world see what happens if Obama gets... but now there I go, trying to rehash the same ol' slop.  I'll try to not respond to any other politico crap on this thread, and perhaps we can get it back on target.

Getting back on track, I still wanna see every Wal-Mart Super Center, Target shopping center, or any other strip mall become a solar farm, with cells that stretch from the back of the building to the edge of the parking lot.


----------



## Dune (Aug 21, 2008)

And not just comercial property but residential as well. Spain passed a law several years ago that mandated that all new construction, comercial or residential must have a solar roof. I thought this was a great idea and would spread around the world, but as far as I know, only Spain has such a law. How pathethic that Spain or any other country should be so far ahead of the U.S. in this regard. This is why I say that we can't look to or wait for the Gov. to solve this energy crisis. It is going to require individual effort by all those that are able.


----------



## velvetfoot (Aug 21, 2008)

Hey, Cape Cod!  When are those thousands of off shore wind turbines going up?


----------



## Dune (Aug 22, 2008)

The permiting process alone has taken seven years so far. Every government agency from the individual towns to the farthest reaches of the feds are involved. For the most part the local opposition seems to be backing off, but does still exist.


----------



## Telco (Aug 23, 2008)

Yep, read that about Spain, but it won't fly here because it'll raise the cost of housing.  This is why I was looking at starting with big business.  Since Wal-Mart has put a slowdown on building new stores due to market saturation, they could apply that capital towards going all solar with their stores.  They would see a regular, increasing savings in their power bill, provided they could work a deal with the power company over the billing, AND they could reap tons of publicity over it.  They could use the power savings to either undercut their competitors, or not change prices and improve profits.  Big business is also the only ones that can afford to go to the suppliers and buy bulk panels under multiyear contracts, while guaranteeing enough business over the years (no way a company the size of Wal-Mart could convert all their stores to solar in less than 10 years) to prompt the solar gear suppliers to expand their manufacturing base.  All this would make going solar cheaper for the residential side.  Get a dozen companies like that to start going solar and I bet in 5 years you'd be able to get 300 watt panels for 100 bucks each.

So far as Cape Cod goes, as soon as Teddy succumbs to liquor poisoning the most vocal and visible opponent to wind power will go.  NOTE:  This particular comment only reflects Teddy Kennedy's very vocal opposition to wind power, and nothing else.


----------



## Dune (Aug 24, 2008)

One of my freinds put a photovoltaic system on his house several years ago. He gets a check from the electric company every month, which, combined with the savings of not having a bill, would have paid off in eight years, but the rates have gone up so much since then that his payback period will be much shorter. Rates are only going to continue to rise. The economic conitions already exist to make green energy feasible. Another freind heats his house with a small diesel genset burning free cooking oil and get free electric as well.  A very large motel in Teddy's home town uses a generator burning natural gas to produce all it's electricity and hot water, cleanly saving a fortune. Another fellow burns the same amount of heating oil that he has always used, but in a generator instead of an oil burner and gets free electricity all year even though he only runs the generator during the heating season.  A local chain of stores is installing small turbine will mills on the roof of all their stores, which will provide almost half of their electricity. My town hall now runs mostly on solar generated electricity. I could go on and on. The time is now, not hopefuly ten years from now. Lets start talking about what we can and are doing, instead of thinking up reasons why this or that scheme is no good.


----------



## Telco (Aug 26, 2008)

Dunebilly said:
			
		

> The time is now, not hopefuly ten years from now. Lets start talking about what we can and are doing, instead of thinking up reasons why this or that scheme is no good.



Foolish thinking.  If you don't evaluate potential problems, you wind up with either a failed system, or you wind up rebuilding the system several times, all of which adds to the cost dramatically.  I'd much rather fix a problem with a little forethought about what might go wrong than with expensive bits and pieces.  Your way of not thinking up reasons why something won't work is good only for draining the pocketbook for no good reason.

The ten year mark is what I figured it would take for a large retailer like Wal-Mart to convert all of its stores to solar.  Even if they began the process yesterday, the sheer volume of equipment needed and time to install would take them 10 years, if not longer.  It takes time to build this stuff.  Nice thing is, if they DID enter into a contract to convert all their stores, this would spur larger production lines and innovations to produce more power from less panels.  If the contract specified that each store's equipment load must be able to generate 5 megawatts of power per day (just pulling a number out of my @$$ here, so don't read too much into it) then the panel maker would have a financial incentive to build panels that can make the required power with fewer panels, and would have incentive to cut the cost to make each panel.  Same with the rest of the gear.  When the contract is fulfilled, they would still have the manufacturing facilities, which means more panels on the market, which would drive down costs for residential users, which means more people being able to afford the gear.  On top of that, imagine the interest that would be generated by people seeing a large retailer using all solar, especially when you consider that the retailer will go WAY out of his way to make sure his customers know that "We're greener than the competition, we use solar power to run our store and feed the excess back to the power company to power YOUR house!"  This would be a marketing boom, and the knowledge that you're already using solar power in your house thanks to the retailer, well, maybe solar power isn't so exotic anymore.  

See?  Getting big business to jump onboard would be something that could be done RIGHT NOW.  It would also be the most effective way to cut fossil fuel usage for power, since these big businesses are also the largest consumers of power.  My local Wal-Mart shopping complex probably uses more power in a day than my house uses in a year.


----------



## Dune (Aug 28, 2008)

I agree with you completely. I think efforts must me made on every front. What I am trying to say is that there are viable alternatives available now, and homeowners should not have to wait until big business or the government or anyone else propels them. Lets utilize whats available now. Most research universities and most big corperations are already way into research/investment in green energy. The train is already rolling down the tracks. We just need more people to get onboard and use what is available. We can switch to more effective means as they become available.


----------



## velvetfoot (Aug 28, 2008)

Conservation is key.  It helps out every day all day.  Sunny, windy, or not.
With all the talk of how warm it is in the stove room (me included) it probably wouldn't be bad to conserve wood either.


----------



## Telco (Aug 28, 2008)

Yes, I agree with you Dunebilly, up to a point.  The masses are living paycheck to paycheck.  While changing equipment to go renewable/solar/wind/what have you will in the long run cost less than living as they do, that initial outlay for gear is something the average joe can't swing.  Then there's other considerations such as home owner's associations.  They regulate everything about your place right down to the color you are allowed to paint your house.  I've already had to tangle with mine over the outside TV antenna I have.  I only won that due to federal law.  And, all that's assuming that your place is correctly located and has the correct access to good sun/wind to make it usable to begin with.  

Big business, on the other hand, tends to have large pieces of land available, or at least large patches of roof available for renewables.  They aren't usually located in areas where it would be unsightly to have renewable power installed, in fact since most big business has flat roof buildings RE gear might not even be seen at all.  They also tend to have the capital available to buy the gear available.  Only by engaging big business to invest in solar big time will we get enough of a market for solar gear to get an industrial base large enough to bring the costs down to where Joe Sixpack can afford to convert over.  I could see a lot of people being able to put back 5 grand to go solar, but not 30 grand.  

The most Joe is going to be able to do is switch to CFLs, keep his filters clean, be disciplined about keeping unused gear shut off, and add insulation.  Beyond that...


----------



## Dune (Aug 30, 2008)

Some peoples pay back periods may be longer than others, and for some with very low electric bills, it may not be worth considering even if solar panels fell in cost by half. My electric bill however, is $250 a month and scheduled to increase by 27%. And when fossil fuel costs rise again, it will go up again.  Solar electric is just one small part of the picture, though, and far from the only option for Joe.  A perfect example is using a woodstove to offset heating costs. Depending upon how much one paid for a stove ( I have gotten many free wood stoves), and whether one were able to install said stove themselves, the payback could be almost imediate, depending upon access to firewood. How do you think you are going to compel the Waltons to spend their money the way you want them to? You basicaly say in your last sentence, that the average person can't do anything,(or at most very little) about the problem and I strongly disagree, in fact my whole point is that most of us can and should choose to do any and all that can be done, by any means possible. Does anyone remenber passive solar?


----------



## Telco (Aug 30, 2008)

Yes, and I stand by it.  Many people live in apartments, or rent.  That eliminates them from the mix of being able to do anything, right there.  Of those that have their own house, many are part of condos, duplexes, ect (yes, for some reason people think it's a good idea to buy half a house with someone else) and they have to get agreement for major changes that might affect the other owners.  Then there are those like myself, who are in HOA neighborhoods.  My HOA bans fireplaces, so even if I wanted to use wood heat, I can't.  This has already eliminated a very large part of the population from being able to make changes even if they wanted to.  For those that do have houses they can make mods to, many are not going to have the skills to do self-installs, and will have to hire the work out.  It's a stroke of luck having a friend that is willing to come make major modifications to your house for a case of beer.  If you live in the city, add on permits to make changes, those cost money.  Families like the Waltons are going to be few and far between when taking the nation as a whole, and to be perfectly honest how many country folk do you know that aren't already on wood heat?  Like it or not, these are the real problems that face a person who wants to do more than change their light bulbs to save energy, and these problems will need to be addressed by society as a whole before major changes can be made.  Big Business, on the other hand, CAN go ahead with these changes.  They have the money to do it and the lawyers to change the rules that need changing to accomplish what they need to do.  What does Joe have?  Just depending on the very small percentage of the population who are in a position to make major changes to fix everything isn't going to happen.


----------



## Dune (Aug 30, 2008)

Sorry, the Waltons own Walmart, are among the richest people in the world, and couldn't care less what you or anyone else thinks.


----------



## Telco (Aug 30, 2008)

Oh, THOSE Walton's.  I was thinking Johnboy and that bunch since we were discussing Joe Sixpack, not Joe Champers.

The advantage to Wal-Mart would be obvious.

1.  Lower monthly power bills, which no longer go up with fuel cost hikes.
2.  Some residual income from selling power to the utilities, per store (how much power could you generate with a professionally designed and built 10-20 acre solar farm?)
3.  The GINORMOUS advertising advantage of being green.  
4.  Tax credits that they would be able to wrangle
5.  The possibility, once they get contracts in place, of marketing complete solar systems to their customers.

I'm sure there are more, but these are the ones that jumped out the fastest.


----------



## Dune (Aug 30, 2008)

All those advantages except # 5 belong to anyone who installs any green system. Yes, SOME people can't afford it and some can't for location or other reasons but MANY could . The most important advantages are those you don't even list, reducing cash exportation from U.S., reducing green house gas emissions, preserving oil and coal for higher uses than burning, ending some of our slaverey to Corporations, becoming more self sufficient, lowering cost of living to income ratio,(raises lifestyle). This country was built by a can-do attidude, just because you don't have such an attidude does not mean everyone else feels or thinks that way. And again, I ask you, how do you propose to force the Waltons to do what you wish, just because it is a good idea? This is a green forum. We need to talk about what people can do, not give falacious arguments as to why nothing can be done except by big business.


----------



## Telco (Sep 2, 2008)

Dunebilly said:
			
		

> All those advantages except # 5 belong to anyone who installs any green system. Yes, SOME people can't afford it and some can't for location or other reasons but MANY could . The most important advantages are those you don't even list, reducing cash exportation from U.S., reducing green house gas emissions, preserving oil and coal for higher uses than burning, ending some of our slaverey to Corporations, becoming more self sufficient, lowering cost of living to income ratio,(raises lifestyle). This country was built by a can-do attidude, just because you don't have such an attidude does not mean everyone else feels or thinks that way. And again, I ask you, how do you propose to force the Waltons to do what you wish, just because it is a good idea? This is a green forum. We need to talk about what people can do, not give falacious arguments as to why nothing can be done except by big business.



Actually, it seems your intent is to find argument and be right regardless.  You asked what might convince a rich family like the Waltons to put solar installations on their stores, I provided several examples.  You claim that everyone can go solar except me as I have no can-do attitude, yet I don't see all my neighbors sprouting solar installations while my roof is bare (and shaded by the neighbor's roof in the winter).  You also seem to not be able to see the economic realities of life for the people of this nation, while I can.  Few people can crap out 30 grand for life-saving surgery without going into debt for years, much less for a bunch of solar panels.  Perhaps you are able to, but Joe Sixpack cannot.  If you can, bully for you.  Perhaps you can share your secrets to wealth with everyone else so we can all afford to go 100 percent solar.  And if your secret is to live as though you were a caveman, don't expect too many followers.

By the way, reexamine reason 3 on why the Waltons might be convinced to put solar installations on their stores, and tell me how anybody can benefit from it.  Really.  I'd like to know how it would pay me to advertise that I had a personal solar installation.


----------



## Dune (Sep 2, 2008)

Actualy I expressed my intent in my second post to the green room, presently on the next page, about stirling engines. And while I will never agree that Newt Gingrich is a good guy, or that we should have reinvaded Irag, I do agree that Walmart, and every other building, large and small should have either a soalr roof or windmills on it, IF and IF, such placement is apropriate and possible. Solar is already at the point where it is economicaly feasible in many areas. I have listed many examples of things that can be done, and I and many other individuals are working on many other solutions. Did you see my post on TEGs about three pages in? did you see my post about sterling engines? About Algae oil? About a central heating system based on a woodstove converted to a boiler? Did you see some of the other guys posts on windmills, and photovoltaic solar panel installations? Ever heard of passive solar? How about Nofossils solar hot water heater made from coils of black plastic pipe? In my state(home of many horrible, country crippling liberals)  a law was passed on july 8,2008, by one of those retched liberals (Patrick) that enables tax credits and direct refunds of up to 50% on any green energy investment. This is in addition to federal energy credits witch will expire this december. Going green, does not" raise the cost of housing" as you so blithely pointed out. It lowers the cost of living, and hopefully will preserve the earth for those who live here in the future. I could care less about winning a political argument with some one who thinks the neocons are doing a good job for America.


----------



## Telco (Sep 3, 2008)

Wow, I have worked you into a frenzy, haven't I?  Nevertheless, time for a real world fact:  any addition to a house is going to raise the price of the house.  Do you think that 30 thousand dollar solar panel installation is going to be free?  No, it's going to turn that 120,000 dollar house into a 150,000 dollar house.  Who am I kidding, more like 170,000 dollars.  Yes, the power bill will be less.  Yes, the cost per month won't actually be higher, it might even be lower.  But is it going to matter?  How many people really care what the monthly bills will be when they are buying the house?  They are ONLY focused on the house price and house payment, and that house with the solar panels will still be a 120,000 dollar house with a 170,000 dollar price tag.  Is this smart?  No it isn't, but then people aren't smart.  If they were there would be no such thing as the variable interest rate mortgage.  What kind of an idiot signs a loan with a 1/4 percent savings over a fixed rate when that interest can go up 6 percent, doubling the monthly payment, with no recourse?

So far as your projects, and the projects of others on this board, great job.  But we're still only talking about what, 100 people out of about 301 million?  And that's IF this board were only limited to the US.  Since it's a worldwide board, it's more like 6.6 billion.  That's such a small percentage that it may as well be nonexistent.  I'm simply posting what the REAL WORLD sees, and what the REAL WORLD will do when faced with issues.  If the real world were people who are really interested in conserving power and going all renewable, then do you think we'd be having this discussion?  Would power sucking 60 inch flat screen plasma TVs be popular?  The real world is only worried about what it will cost me, today, in dollars.  If burning spotted owls were a nickel a month cheaper than burning coal, there's be a public outcry for more spotted owl fueled power plants.  It took 4 dollar a gallon gas to get PART of America out of SUVs, so even that pain isn't complete, and now oil is falling.  Until you can address the "what will it cost me NOW, THIS MINUTE", you aren't going to capture the hearts and souls of the general population.  The only people you are going to reach is like-minded people, and we don't need convincing.  You can keep wearing your rose colored glasses and not see the real problems with changing a nation, but until you take them off and look at the world through the cold, literal eyes of a conservative you aren't going to change much of anything.  "This is how it should be" is no match for "this is how it is."  The 60's are over, my friend, and good riddance to those stinkin' hippies.  The only thing they had that was worthwhile was some of the music.

Don't think I'm trying to say it's all useless, so don't bother, though.  Far from it.  I've even got my own ideas that I discuss on other boards more appropriate to the subject.  For example, my next automotive project will be to put a more fuel efficient ICE in my current vehicle as I can get that done now and take a week doing it.  Ironically, it means putting a larger, more powerful engine in.  After that, I will be picking up a project to build an electric driven pickup that will have unlimited range and be able to maintain 80+MPH with a load.  That project will take me some time because it's all new territory to me, and I need a place where I can spend a year putting it together properly.  Once I get it working, I'll have a very detailed parts list and pics of the process available for anyone to duplicate for free.

BTW, this guy's my hero and I plan to duplicate his setup for storing heat in hot water.  Only, I intend to try and supply 100 percent of my household heat and DHW, year round, from the sun with a few modifications of his design.  Naturally I'll have a wood fired backup system, but the goal will be 100 percent of my heat generated by the Sun.  How about them apples, and here I am a good political conservative?


----------



## Dune (Sep 3, 2008)

Nice link. I have seen it before, but I still apreciate your showing it again.  It seems as if you know the thoughts and feelings of most of the 300 million people in the country and possibly 6.6 billion more. Fortunately you are incorrect in your assumptions. I too am on other boards, and I am trying to bring info here, where it may be found by someone who needs it, since this is so likely a place to check. One of my favorite sites is DIY electric vehicles, which is a perfect example of something that can be done by someone who has  real estate restrictions. Just so you know, I am a conservative. I believe in conserving oil, money, lives, personal freedom, and anything else worth having.  Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Gonzales, Rove, and the puppetmasters behind them are not conservatives. They are Neocons, and have run this country the exact opposite way that true conservatives would. There is a reason republicans have been losing elections steadily for the last few years.  The people of this country are sick of being lied to, sick of secrative Gov., sick of seeing their children come home in body bags or maimed, mentaly and bodily, sick of high food prices, higher and higher insurance costs,and pharmaceutical cost, sick of the clean air act being degraded, and the EPA, anf the DoJ politisied,  sick of tax cuts for the rich and big business and oil, and personaly I am more than sick of being told at every airport or ferry that I go through, that the terroist threat is at level orange, and there there is a high risk of a terroist act in some droning, monotone of a fear filled old mans voice.


----------



## velvetfoot (Sep 3, 2008)

Hey, why is this in not in the Ash Can?


This'll get it there toot sweet:

GO NUCLEAR!  Vote McCain!


----------



## Telco (Sep 3, 2008)

Still got that tunnel vision wearing rose colored glasses, I see.  There you go assuming that everyone in the world wants to go green but Big Business and Big Government are preventing it.  It's just a huge conspiracy.  

When it's cheaper to be green than be brown, people will do it.  Until then, only environmentalists will exert more money, time and effort to be green.  Everyone else will be happy going the cheapest, easiest route until it can't be used anymore, regardless of what they may say.  Talk is easy and cheap, and saying "I WANNA BE GREEN!" takes almost zero effort.


----------



## Dune (Sep 3, 2008)

At least you are willing to admit there is a conspiracy.


----------



## Telco (Sep 4, 2008)

Dunebilly said:
			
		

> At least you are willing to admit there is a conspiracy.



There is, and it's one we're all part of.  It's the "What's the cheapest I can get away with here?" conspiracy.  There's another one that only business is in, which is the "How can I make more money off my customers?" conspiracy.  The government one is "How can I get more tax money and maintain more power over the common man?" conspiracy.  Three conspiracies with differing goals.


----------



## got wood? (Sep 4, 2008)

Hey, did you guys hear about this??

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/15/business/15solar.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

“The plants will cover 12.5 square miles of central California with solar panels, and in the middle of a sunny day will generate about 800 megawatts of power, roughly equal to the size of a large coal-burning power plant or a small nuclear plant. A megawatt is enough power to run a large Wal-Mart store.” 

;-)


----------



## Telco (Sep 4, 2008)

got wood? said:
			
		

> Hey, did you guys hear about this??
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/15/business/15solar.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
> 
> ...



Heh heh... that means that they are expecting to generate 64 megawatts per square mile.  This means they can expect to generate 1 megawatt on a 10 acre lot.  Most Wal-Marts take about 15-20 acres of land.  A Wal-Mart store could then be expected to be able to generate about 2MW per day if they built a solar installation that covered both the store and parking lot.  At an average price of 70 bucks per megawatt (derived from a quick internet check) a store could expect to save about 2100 a month in electricity, and generate another 2100 a month in revenues, for a net gain of 4200 a month.  True, this is probably half of that day's profits, but imagine the ad campaign they could mount by advertising their stores are all green powered, so we pass the savings on to you!  Sure, it would be a lie, just like their little smiley face price tags that say this can of soda was 1.25, now 1.00, when you bought it yesterday for 75 cents.  But it would still be a valuable ad.  And none of this even takes into account the tax credits they would get off it.


----------



## sgcsalsero (Sep 5, 2008)

got wood? said:
			
		

> http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/15/business/15solar.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
> 
> "The plants will cover 12.5 square miles of central California with solar panels, and in the middle of a sunny day will generate about 800 megawatts of power, roughly equal to the size of a large coal-burning power plant or a small nuclear plant. A megawatt is enough power to run a large Wal-Mart store."



Thanks, I passed that along to our R&D;area, they want to put in a system since our main building at work faces due South and gets full sun all day.


----------

