- Joined
- 03 Feb 07
- Moves
- 214775
Originally posted by KazetNagorraThat's dated information re solar power. It's made some huge strides over the past few years, and the tax breaks for installation as well as the experiments in various municipalities to pay for the installation and then allow the owner to pay it off in installments with their property taxes have expanded the possibilities greatly.
Solar is too expensive (at the moment). Wind doesn't produce constant power.
It's still fresh however. The first solar panel produced by automated manufacturing rolled off the lines about a decade ago.
2 edits
Originally posted by Kunsoothe biggest problem with solar panels is space. I'd love to install solar panels in my yard. With the tax breaks and energy savings it would pay for itself in a few years. But you need a large patch of open land unobstructed by trees and I don't have that.
That's dated information re solar power. It's made some huge strides over the past few years, and the tax breaks for installation as well as the experiments in various municipalities to pay for the installation and then allow the owner to pay it off in installments with their property taxes have expanded the possibilities greatly.
It's still fresh however ...[text shortened]... irst solar panel produced by automated manufacturing rolled off the lines about a decade ago.
What would really work is covering the roofs of apartment buildings in big cities with solar panels.
Originally posted by no1marauderThey'll just continue to buy nuke generated power from France.
Finally, an industrialized country with a sensible energy policy. And this with a Center-Right government! Details here: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43214183/ns/business-oil_and_energy/
Some highlights:
"We want the electricity of the future to be safe, reliable and economically viable," Chancellor Angela Merkel told reporters ...[text shortened]... heme was scrapped and cleaner more environmentally friendly measures put in its place.
Originally posted by no1marauderThe nuclear plants in Germany are already built. Shutting them down early results in a much higher cost per unit over all because the economics of nuclear include a very high construction cost which gets paid off over time. Shutting down a nuclear plant sooner than necessary is more expensive than keeping it running.
No, it isn't. It is between using our resources to build and maintain (at huge cost and substantial risk) nuclear power plants or using those resources to develop more efficient and less dangerous alternatives.
I don't know how you calculate efficiency. I don' think it even makes sense in this context. Please explain for example how solar is 'more efficient' than nuclear.
Originally posted by KunsooNot really. It's still a lot more expensive to build a solar plant to generate power than to build a coal plant. That's not to say solar power is useless, just that its use is situational at the moment.
That's dated information re solar power. It's made some huge strides over the past few years, and the tax breaks for installation as well as the experiments in various municipalities to pay for the installation and then allow the owner to pay it off in installments with their property taxes have expanded the possibilities greatly.
It's still fresh however ...[text shortened]... irst solar panel produced by automated manufacturing rolled off the lines about a decade ago.
Originally posted by AThousandYoungTransporting energy long distances leads to losses. I've heard conflicting reports about the importance of these. Some say they are a big deterrent to a project like that, others say that it's not that bad.
Deserts. The Sahara should be a giant solar power plant.
Anyone knows a bit more about this (beyond wiki)?