Tidal power - an existential threat to humanity?

[ChrisV]

I must not have made my point clear - forgive me.

This unarguable sin of "renewables" is that at the very least, in total, they are not better than coal/nucular/NG, plus, they've siphoned untold billions $$$ (maybe a few trillion $$$ at this point) and a few decades of engineering from improving the use of coal/nucular/NG.

Renewables include solar, which you can install on your own home and power your house and car and not pay the power companies. Can't do that with nuclear, coal, etc.

As to wind power, this is a good vid:

[GoCougs]

95%+ of the homes in the US will never sustain via on-property solar panels - said power simply is neither dense nor consistent enough. Plus, when it is, it's colossally expensive, esp. the battery reserves; you'll never "make" money on such a deal at anything remotely close to today's energy prices.

The only "renewable" that is legit is large scale hydro, but of course the ecological cost is very high, and rivers are limited.

[ChrisV]

95%+ of the homes in the US will never sustain via on-property solar panels - said power simply is neither dense nor consistent enough. Plus, when it is, it's colossally expensive, esp. the battery reserves; you'll never "make" money on such a deal at anything remotely close to today's energy prices.

The only "renewable" that is legit is large scale hydro, but of course the ecological cost is very high, and rivers are limited.

I take it you've never used home solar. Or known many people who have. I'd like to see a source for your "95% of homes" claim. Reeks of BS.

[r0tor]

95%+ of the homes in the US will never sustain via on-property solar panels - said power simply is neither dense nor consistent enough. Plus, when it is, it's colossally expensive, esp. the battery reserves; you'll never "make" money on such a deal at anything remotely close to today's energy prices.

The only "renewable" that is legit is large scale hydro, but of course the ecological cost is very high, and rivers are limited.

The point of home solar does not need to be self sustain.  The screaming hot thing in Europe right now is going to a box store and buying a couple panels as a package, plopping them on their porch roof or shed roof, and since they have a built in inverter they just plug into a standard wall outlet.

Low material cost, basically zero install cost, and taking a noticeable chunk out of your electric bill and load on the grid.

[veeman]

The point of home solar does not need to be self sustain.  The screaming hot thing in Europe right now is going to a box store and buying a couple panels as a package, plopping them on their porch roof or shed roof, and since they have a built in inverter they just plug into a standard wall outlet.

Low material cost, basically zero install cost, and taking a noticeable chunk out of your electric bill and load on the grid.

The anecdotal problem I've heard with solar panels from people who live in the same town as I do is that it's more difficult to sell your house especially if the solar panels are leased or there's still outstanding payments left on them.  No new home buyer wants to deal with that and a lien on their property from the owners of the solar panels. A friend of ours who moved out of town had 3 potential buyers back out when they found out about the solar panels.  If they've been bought outright, getting a financial return on the 20 thousand dollar initial cost will take a decade or often 15 years.   

[GoCougs]

I take it you've never used home solar. Or known many people who have. I'd like to see a source for your "95% of homes" claim. Reeks of BS.

The point of home solar does not need to be self sustain.  The screaming hot thing in Europe right now is going to a box store and buying a couple panels as a package, plopping them on their porch roof or shed roof, and since they have a built in inverter they just plug into a standard wall outlet.

Low material cost, basically zero install cost, and taking a noticeable chunk out of your electric bill and load on the grid.

It's a simple calc (and no, Europe hasn't solved anything): kw/hr from the panels vs. kw/hr consumed by the home, against the backdrop of actual power delivered by the sun. Most areas in the USA do not have year 'round sun, and plenty have sort not much of it.

Solar sucks because the power density is so low and the sun is sketch in most places, and it will always be so. Sure, buy enough panels and enough batteries in such areas but then it becomes extremely expensive (like $100Ks), ergo, very few normal homes (w/stove, hot water heater, furnace/AC, etc.) runs completely off-grid via solar.

Gentlemen, there's nothing new under the sun: "renewables" are sucky and will remain so.

[r0tor]

I don't think you have actually priced out a home solar system in the last 15 years then.

Also in the case of the European systems I mentioned, it's pretty easy to see that a ~$500-1000 investment that could take maybe 20% off your electric bills for the next 25 years isn't exactly a bad deal

[AutobahnSHO]

Price of power in Europe is crazy higher so of course it makes more sense.

Same with riding a bike or public transportation when gasoline and oil and inspection fees and taxes boost the cost of driving through the roof....

[r0tor]

Price of power in Europe is crazy higher so of course it makes more sense.

Same with riding a bike or public transportation when gasoline and oil and inspection fees and taxes boost the cost of driving through the roof....

So if you take $15-20 off your electric bill every month for the next 25 years, does $500 sound like a reasonable investment?

[AutobahnSHO]

How long do solar panels last?

[FoMoJo]

How long do solar panels last?

25 to 30 years, so they say.