For the naysayers-Germany sets solar power record

[Cuddles]

What does this all-or-nothing mentality of solar energy detractors stem from?

Cost. According to the article in the OP subsidies for solar power in Germany account for just under 10% of consumer electric bills (note that's just the subsidies, not the full cost of solar), yet solar power only provides around 4% of their electricity. If it's not cost effective compared to the alternatives, then nothing may well be the best choice, regardless of what proportion of power it could potentially provide.

Of course, that "if" is exactly where most of the argument currently lies. It may well simply be that there is no alternative that can be as cheap as fossil fuels, and electricity costs are going to have to rise. It could be that the 10% increase is actually the best deal we can manage and solar is the best choice for providing as much as possible. But it could also be that solar really is more expensive than other power sources, and that building any solar capacity means wasting money that could provide more benefit elsewhere. If that turns out to be the case, then arguing in favour of nothing is actually the sensible choice.

 

[DC]

what is the cost of our climate? considering what fossil fuels have done and will do to our climate, i would say Solar power is alot cheaper than any fossil fuel.

 

[DC]

Technically you are correct, it's likely none of the Warmers here have the rabies virus. However this thread itself is an excellent introduction into articles of faith of warmers and disregard for both cost effectiveness of alternative energy equipment in favor of a supposed greater good.

In other words, the thread displays how Warmers avoid critical thinking in favor of "universal and simple solutions", which is essentially, argument from belief and faith. As such it seems a comment regarding that would be in order.

its ironic that you would say that, it is the deniers that base their claims on faith, the warmers have the science and the facts on their side. its the deniers that are arguing from a position of blind faith.

 

[MortFurd]

I think its important to encourage Germany's silly foray into solar power.

Its cheaper than trying to rule the world, and less Jews, homos, commies, intellectuals and gypsies die in the interim.

Germans playing with photo-voltaics is like Jeffery Dammer playing with pottery.
You really want to encourage it. Try to ignore the costs. The alternative is always more expensive.
Snip....

Now THAT was uncalled for.

 

[DC]

Now THAT was uncalled for.

welcome to the internet, there is always atleast one dumb person trying a Godwin

 

[Bikewer]

As DC says...The costs associated with the effects of global warming are enormous. In worst-case scenarios, the loss of major cities, movement of entire populations, refugee crises, war, etc, etc.
A 10% increase in electrical prices may be a bargain.
Also, I'm thinking that this figure must inevitably come down; once installed, a solar array costs very little to keep running. As well, increased production and refinement of technologies would inevitably make things cheaper.

I listened to a fellow on Science Friday recently who was promoting the "smart grid" idea; he presented a good case. Literally everything electrical, down to individual appliances, hooked into the grid in ways that maximize efficiency.
Local power sources of all types as well; wind, water, tidal, geothermal.... None by itself suffiicient for our needs, but all working together in concert...

 

[mhaze]

its ironic that you would say that, it is the deniers that base their claims on faith, the warmers have the science and the facts on their side. its the deniers that are arguing from a position of blind faith.

Whether that is true or false in general is not at issue. In this thread, you have argued not on science or facts in a single post. You've argued on faith, irrespective of facts.

 

[DC]

Whether that is true or false in general is not at issue. In this thread, you have argued not on science or facts in a single post. You've argued on faith, irrespective of facts.

the impact of CO2 on your climate and also the impact of climate changes on us are not based on faith, they are based on scientific knowledge, the very knowledge you are in denial about.

 

[mhaze]

As DC says...The costs associated with the effects of global warming are enormous. In worst-case scenarios, the loss of major cities, movement of entire populations, refugee crises, war, etc, etc.
....I listened to a fellow on Science Friday recently who was promoting the "smart grid" idea; he presented a good case. Literally everything electrical, down to individual....

But you pick hysterical alarmist scenarios to fit your prejudices. You've conveniently left out the worst case disaster scenarios that do not fit the narrative or your pre existing prejudice, such as the well understood effect of a Carrington event on a smart grid.

Since you insist, here ya go:

As Mhaze says...The costs associated with the effects of a Carrington event are enormous, and are dramatically worst if "smart grids" are implemented. In worst-case scenarios, the loss of major cities, movement of entire populations, refugee crises, war, etc, etc.

....Also, I'm thinking that this figure must inevitably come down; once installed, a solar array costs very little to keep running. As well, increased production and refinement of technologies would inevitably make things cheaper....

Of course. This is exactly why Germany right now has lost 70% of it's investment in it's prized solar arrays from yesterday. They cannot be valued above replacement cost less depreciation.

The right way to figure the cost of electricity is not the price per kwh, but the price per kwh delivered to date, divided by the 70% of lost sunk costs (some $140B is what that amounts to). That'll put you up past several Euros per kwh.

......Local power sources of all types as well; wind, water, tidal, geothermal.... None by itself suffiicient for our needs, but all working together in concert...

You mean all working together in concert, with the quality of cost analysis shown by Germany in this instance or the level of critical thinking shown in this thread?

That's a FAIL.

 

[DC]

But you pick hysterical alarmist scenarios to fit your prejudices. sniped the rest of FAIL.

typical denier nonsense. This is a forum frquented by many many sceptics, most of the readers here know who has the science and the facts on their side.
you are not fooling many people here, you are fooling mainly yourself.

 

[Baloney]

typical denier nonsense. This is a forum frquented by many many sceptics, most of the readers here know who has the science and the facts on their side.
you are not fooling many people here, you are fooling mainly yourself.

This?

 

[mhaze]

typical denier nonsense. This is a forum frquented by many many sceptics, most of the readers here know who has the science and the facts on their side.
you are not fooling many people here, you are fooling mainly yourself.

Really?

You miss that Bikewr SAID "worst case scenarios".

I only note that he picked some, and ignored others.

Or are you saying that readers here know the science and the facts about Carrington events and are not worried about them because they are not dangerous?

 

[Cuddles]

what is the cost of our climate?

Irrelevant. Notice how I explicitly pointed out that it doesn't matter how expensive solar is relative to fossil fuels, but how expensive it is relative to every single possible alternative. In fact, you're giving a perfect demonstration of my underlying point - there is really no such thing as "solar naysayers", it's simply that some of us aren't willing to simply start crying "Wah climate!" and jump into bed with solar, but actually want to look over all the options in a sensible manner. Maybe solar is a great deal, but maybe it's a complete waste of money that could be better spent on something else. Completely ignoring the important point and just constantly going on about fossil fuels and climate when all sensible people are already agreed on those points doesn't help advance the discussion in the slightest.

 

[DC]

Irrelevant. Notice how I explicitly pointed out that it doesn't matter how expensive solar is relative to fossil fuels, but how expensive it is relative to every single possible alternative. In fact, you're giving a perfect demonstration of my underlying point - there is really no such thing as "solar naysayers", it's simply that some of us aren't willing to simply start crying "Wah climate!" and jump into bed with solar, but actually want to look over all the options in a sensible manner. Maybe solar is a great deal, but maybe it's a complete waste of money that could be better spent on something else. Completely ignoring the important point and just constantly going on about fossil fuels and climate when all sensible people are already agreed on those points doesn't help advance the discussion in the slightest.

i know of no alternative that Germany is not trying expect for nuclear of course.
Also Germany is running out of time, they have no time anymore to try out wich of the alternative might be the cheapest. They need a solution and need it soon. and they do a great job atm.

 

[mhaze]

i know of no alternative that Germany is not trying expect for nuclear of course.
Also Germany is running out of time, they have no time anymore to try out wich of the alternative might be the cheapest. They need a solution and need it soon. and they do a great job atm.

Following on my earlier comment that the realistic cost of electricity in Germany is now several Euro/kwh, what is the cost to the taxpayers of the idle nuclear plants? They have a useful life in excess of 50 years, so let's say half of that remains - on average. There are 8 currently idled. Using a average cost per plant of $4B, the lost to Germany's taxpayers of idling them is $16B. Granted, this is nothing compared to the $140B in current depreciation write offs from the solar plants in existence. But, those plants only could at best provide the power of four nuclear plants.

It's a bit peculiar that losses to date in solar would be tenfold that of nuclear while producing less than half the power, isn't it?

....Also Germany is running out of time, they have no time anymore to try out wich of the alternative might be the cheapest. They need a solution and need it soon. and they do a great job atm.

FAIL is an option.

Odd how we've reached this point in the discussion from the initial hooplah from the glorious press release, now to total fail with apparent serious repercussions.

 

[quarky]

Now THAT was uncalled for.

Of course it was. However, the part you snipped had lots of worth.
May I be the dumbest person you ever encounter on the internet.

 

[BenBurch]

Of course it was. However, the part you snipped had lots of worth.
May I be the dumbest person you ever encounter on the internet.

Not by a long stretch.

We have some people on here who can be shown the error of their ways repeatedly without learning a thing or having the humility to be ashamed.

You are dozens of times smarter than those guys.

 

[BenBurch]

For those who think that photovoltaic cannot be part of a solution; http://evanstonnow.com/story/educat...nu-researchers-report-solar-cell-breakthrough

If Northwestern is right, and you can usually make bank on that, they have the disruptive technology in this field right there.

If we simply had some means of either cheaply-storing power or cheaply wheeling power truly long distances, we would be looking at a complete solution. However, I simply do not see either becoming cheap though both may be possible.

 

[pipelineaudio]

In hawaii and arizona, we got the sun, but without the storage, and with the wear its a big (government subsidized in hawaii at least) fail

In AZ we usually use solar and car batteries for things like rail lights and gates wherever it wouldnt make sense to spend 10k$ every 20th mile for a power pole. Solar really does work out well in that case. Theyre tiny 1 foot by 1 foot panels, but thats enough to juice up the battery for the gate motor and lights

For powering your house? Not so good

 

[mhaze]

For those who think that photovoltaic cannot be part of a solution; http://evanstonnow.com/story/educat...nu-researchers-report-solar-cell-breakthrough

If Northwestern is right, and you can usually make bank on that, they have the disruptive technology in this field right there.

If we simply had some means of either cheaply-storing power or cheaply wheeling power truly long distances, we would be looking at a complete solution. However, I simply do not see either becoming cheap though both may be possible.

We don't need that. There's this wonderful SUCCESS STORY with Germany, haven't you heard?