THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ, ELEVENTH THREAD

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:
Solar technology is itself not even theoretically able to generate adequate energy per its cost in both dollars and space.

This is untrue. Solar energy is probably the most efficient in terms of space vs. energy created, as it can be easily installed on pre-existing structures, whose roofs are currently going unused. All other forms of energy generation carry a larger footprint, with the possible exception of micro-wind generation.

The best solar technologies out there today are producing plants for about $1/watt - comprable to coal.

I think it's fair to say that we know the oil supply isn't increasing faster then we are currently pumping it out. I think it's also fair to say that we are NOT finding large quantities of light, sweet crude - the type of oil which is the easiest to refine and the least pollutive.

Cycloptichorn

A house roof full of solar panels in a region of 14 hours sun light--without clouds--cannot generate more than a small portion of the electricity the typical home consumes 24 hours per day (e.g., cooling & heating). Now consider apartment houses, office buildings, manufacturing plants, power plants, et cetera. Acres of solar panels are required for producing adequate electric power for these buildings. The cost to manufacture, maintain, and use such panels is much much greater than the cost to manufacture, maintain and use oil fired electric power plants and their transmission facilities.

I agree that we know "the oil supply isn't increasing faster then we are currently pumping it out." But that is because of our bumbling (Democrat and Republican) government's prohibitions against oil drilling. Our government has prevented oil drilling for more than 10 years.

I too think "it's also fair to say that we are NOT finding large quantities of light, sweet crude - the type of oil which is the easiest to refine and the least pollutive." Why search for more of that or anyother oil when what has already been found is prevented by our government from being drilled and lifted.

0 Replies

Actually, there are large portions of land/water which have already been leased out for oil drilling, but are not currently being utilized by those who own them. I would want to see more utilization of the current fields before we move on to leasing out more land for this.

Quote:

A house roof full of solar panels in a region of 14 hours sun light--without clouds--cannot generate more than a small portion of the electricity the typical home consumes 24 hours per day (e.g., cooling & heating). Now consider apartment houses, office buildings, manufacturing plants, power plants, et cetera. Acres of solar panels are required for producing adequate electric power for these buildings. The cost to manufacture, maintain, and use such panels is much much greater than the cost to manufacture, maintain and use oil fired electric power plants and their transmission facilities.

This is 100% untrue. Tthe cost to manufacture maintain and use solar panel plants is cheaper then oil fired electric power plants - once you factor in the costs of cleaning up the never-ending waste products of the oil fired plants, something which you seek to ignore in your analysis, that a competent economist would not.

The concept of pumping oil out of the ground at 140 per barrel, to burn to create electricity, is foolish in the extreme. It is a waste and produces a lot of industrial waste.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

revel wrote:
It is not a good thing as once again we have commandeered resources in Iraq with no bid contracts which benefit Cheney and Bush and all those in this administration and those associated who are in the oil business. Proving once again that is the "oil stupid." Its shady and shoddy and unfair to others in the world who may have wanted to contribute and profit from any oil contracts in Iraq.

As for those others alternatives, they may take a while and we may always have to rely on oil as well as those alternatives, but in the end, it would save on energy and help the environment. A good investment all around.

Where do get these silly notions? Liberal blogs? Alien anal probes? Just type letters on the keyboard until words are made? Throw crap at a wall and see what sticks?

Please explain to us how that happens as your ideas are so far out there as to be unexplainable.

I just read the normal internet news and use my own discernment in figuring out the meaning. You would naturally see the same article differently than I would. Sometimes I read liberal sources just as I am sure you read/listen watch right wing sources.

When I read that 'giant' western oil companies are close to a deal with no bid contracts in Iraq, naturally I see it as vindication the charge of Iraq being mostly about oil at the end of it all. Rice says the government had no part in it, but as your article (and the one left which was the same) says

Quote:

"there are still American advisers to Iraq's Oil Ministry."

source

Quote:

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Thursday the US government was not involved in Iraq's no-bid oil contracts that could see four major western oil firms start their first commercial work there since the war began five years ago.

source

0 Replies

Gas also produces pollution; there's a huge cost to our environment and human health.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Actually, there are large portions of land/water which have already been leased out for oil drilling, but are not currently being utilized by those who own them. I would want to see more utilization of the current fields before we move on to leasing out more land for this.

Quote:

A house roof full of solar panels in a region of 14 hours sun light--without clouds--cannot generate more than a small portion of the electricity the typical home consumes 24 hours per day (e.g., cooling & heating). Now consider apartment houses, office buildings, manufacturing plants, power plants, et cetera. Acres of solar panels are required for producing adequate electric power for these buildings. The cost to manufacture, maintain, and use such panels is much much greater than the cost to manufacture, maintain and use oil fired electric power plants and their transmission facilities.

This is 100% untrue. Tthe cost to manufacture maintain and use solar panel plants is cheaper then oil fired electric power plants - once you factor in the costs of cleaning up the never-ending waste products of the oil fired plants, something which you seek to ignore in your analysis, that a competent economist would not.

The concept of pumping oil out of the ground at 140 per barrel, to burn to create electricity, is foolish in the extreme. It is a waste and produces a lot of industrial waste.

Cycloptichorn

To reduce the price of oil we need to lift faster more oil out of the ground--under air or under water. To accomplish that we need more drilling of oil wells into the ground.
To accomplish this, we need more ground in which to drill.
To accomplish this we need to use land largely uninhabited by humans (e.g., ANWAR, off shore).

Per each day, configurations of solar panels have yet to be developed that are able to produce as much electricity per each acre they cover as are oil fired electric power plants are able to produce per each acre they cover.

You neglect to consider the economics of the cost of manufacturing and disposing of the never ending waste of manufacturing solar panels as well as disposing of waste solar panels.

You neglect to consider the cost of the acreage (farm land?) covered by solar panels to produce as much power as a single oil fired power plant per 24 hour day. The roof area of almost all buildings is insufficient to support enough solar panels to generate as much electric power as is used by buildings and supplied them by oil fired power plants.

NOW, solar panels are no more than a HOPE for eventually meeting a significant portion of the electric power requirements of individual states, let alone the human race. Perhaps in 10 years that will begin to CHANGE.

It would be nuts to NOW bet our future on solar panels.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

...
The cost to manufacture maintain and use solar panel plants is cheaper then oil fired electric power plants - once you factor in the costs of cleaning up the never-ending waste products of the oil fired plants, something which you seek to ignore in your analysis, that a competent economist would not.
...
Cycloptichorn

The cost per each kilowatt hour generated using solar panels is higher than the cost per each kilowatt hour generated by oil fired electric power plants.

The cost per million kilowatt hours generated per day using solar panels is higher than the cost per million kilowatt hours generated per day using oil fired electric power plants.

Whoops! Please provide me evidence that there actually exist configurations of solar panels that can generate a million kilowatt hours per sunny day--never mind cloudy days.

0 Replies

ican711nm wrote:

A house roof full of solar panels in a region of 14 hours sun light--without clouds--cannot generate more than a small portion of the electricity the typical home consumes 24 hours per day (e.g., cooling & heating).

I disagree.

Take a look at commercial PV plants like Beneixama:

160,000m² produce enough electricity for 12,000 households. That means that 13,3m² (or roughly 143 sq ft) of PV panels provide enough electricity for one household.

It appears to me that "a house roof full of solar panels" would be more than just 143 sq ft, and hence, probably enough electricity for a "typical home".

0 Replies

ican711nm wrote:

The cost per million kilowatt hours generated per day using solar panels is higher than the cost per million kilowatt hours generated per day using oil fired electric power plants.

What is the cost, ican, of a million kw hours using oil powered electric plants? I can't find the number. You seem to know what it is. Please share it with us. Thank you for doing the research.

0 Replies

realjohnboy wrote:

ican711nm wrote:

The cost per million kilowatt hours generated per day using solar panels is higher than the cost per million kilowatt hours generated per day using oil fired electric power plants.

What is the cost, ican, of a million kw hours using oil powered electric plants? I can't find the number. You seem to know what it is. Please share it with us. Thank you for doing the research.

Here in Texas the price per kilowatt hour is $0.1046. The price per million kilowatt hours = 1,000,000 x $0.1046 = $104,600.

For our household, May 14 thru June 13, at a price of $0.1046 per kilowatt hour, we were charged $248.22 for 2,373 kilowatt hours. Our annual consumption of electricity is approximately 24,000 kilowatt hours and costs us about $2,510.

You're welcome.

0 Replies

How much do you pay (per year) including taxes? I believe energy/utility costs are going up this year and next.

0 Replies

Here in Virginia, the cost is broken down into two components. One is the cost of "producing" the electricity and the other is the cost of "transmitting" it. The bills are at my shop. I will bring some of them home tomorow.
Thank you for your numbers. A basis for a discussion. -johnboy-

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

ican711nm wrote:
A house roof full of solar panels in a region of 14 hours sun light--without clouds--cannot generate more than a small portion of the electricity the typical home consumes 24 hours per day (e.g., cooling & heating).

I disagree.

Take a look at commercial PV plants like Beneixama:

160,000m² produce enough electricity for 12,000 households. That means that 13,3m² (or roughly 143 sq ft) of PV panels provide enough electricity for one household.

It appears to me that "a house roof full of solar panels" would be more than just 143 sq ft, and hence, probably enough electricity for a "typical home".

Probably, I'm misinterpreting these numbers you posted.

If I assume the average Spanish household consumes 1,000 kilowatt hours per month or 12,000 per year, then 12,000 such households would consume 144,000,000 kilowatt hours per year or 144 megawatts per year.

How many square meters of solar panels would be required to produce that electric power in that location in Spain, and at what cost?

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

ican711nm wrote:
A house roof full of solar panels in a region of 14 hours sun light--without clouds--cannot generate more than a small portion of the electricity the typical home consumes 24 hours per day (e.g., cooling & heating).

I disagree.

Take a look at commercial PV plants like Beneixama:

160,000m² produce enough electricity for 12,000 households. That means that 13,3m² (or roughly 143 sq ft) of PV panels provide enough electricity for one household.

It appears to me that "a house roof full of solar panels" would be more than just 143 sq ft, and hence, probably enough electricity for a "typical home".

MY INTERPRETATIONS

Assuming:
1. Total Solar Panel Surface Area = 500,000 square meters;
2. Total Elecrtricity Production = 30 million kilowatt hours per year;
3. Meets the Needs of 12,000 households;
4. Each Texas household needs 1,000 kwhs per month or 12,000 kwhrs per year.

Then together those Texas households would require per year 12,000 kwhs x 12,000 = 144 million kwhs per year.

A production of 30 million kwhs of the needed 144 million kwhrs = 30/144 = 0.20833 of what those 12,000 households need.

To satisfy all of the needs of those 12,000 Texas households, the required surface area of those solar panels would have to be increased to = 500,000 / 0.20833 = 2.4 million sq meters.

If all those solar panels were to be distributed to the roofs of those 12,000 Texas households, that would amount to 2.4 million / 12,000 = 200 sq meters per Texas Household.

BUT what if that 144 million kwh production assumed 100% unclouded daylight, 365 days per year, when in Texas there is actually only an average of, say, 25% unclouded daylight, 365 days per year? Then 4 x 2.4 = 9.6 million sq meters of solar panels, or 800 sq meters per household, would actually be required to generate the required 144 million kwhs per year.

That of course does not include the amount of electricity storage that would be required to provide the needed electric power 75% of the time for heating, cooling, et cetera. Battery or equivalent electricity storage space, would be substantial. My guess is it would require at least an additional 800 sq meters inside or outside the household.

This, old europe, is why I think I probably am misinterpreting the data you provided. I hope I am!

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

How much do you pay (per year) including taxes? I believe energy/utility costs are going up this year and next.

Annual Electricity cost = 2000 x 12 x $0.1046 = $2510.40
Annual Water cost is about 50% more.

You asked about the cost of taxes. Which taxes:
school?;
road?
county?
city?

All together, they add up to about four times the annual cost of electricity.

Federal Taxes are 15% of net income after deductions and exemptions.

What's your point?

0 Replies

The war in Iraq has created another war; the army and air force are having "relationship" problems. Who's fault is this?

Army Is Starting Its Own Air Unit
By THOM SHANKER

As the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have frayed the relationship between Army and Air Force, the Army has organized its own surveillance unit.

0 Replies

ican711nm wrote:

What's your point?

I think CI was asking about utility taxes.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

The war in Iraq has created another war; the army and air force are having "relationship" problems. Who's fault is this?

Army Is Starting Its Own Air Unit
By THOM SHANKER

As the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have frayed the relationship between Army and Air Force, the Army has organized its own surveillance unit.

Thats nothing new.
The Army and the AF were one branch of the service till the 1950's.
Remember the USAAF during WW2?

0 Replies

realjohnboy wrote:

ican711nm wrote:

What's your point?

I think CI was asking about utility taxes.

My utility taxes are zero.

0 Replies

ican711nm wrote:

realjohnboy wrote:
ican711nm wrote:

What's your point?

I think CI was asking about utility taxes.

My utility taxes are zero.

That was the confusion, then. In many parts of the country there are state and local taxes, some of which are a % of the $ amount of the utility's bill.

0 Replies

By the way, one square meter = 10.764 square feet. So 200 square meters = 2,153 square feet, and 800 square meters = 8,611 square feet. It might be kinda difficult to get that many square feet of solar panels on the typical household's roof.

Of course Al Gore's house could handle that without a problem. But then Al Gore's houshold consumes much much more than 12,000 kwhs per year, say n-times as many. So he would need n x 8,611 square feet of solar panels to handle all of his household's electric load.

0 Replies

THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ, ELEVENTH THREAD

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know