Why hasn't Obama invested our taxpayer money in THIS technology that actually WORKS

He did, he just enabled to profit the Chinese instead of Arabians from it. The fact, whole 40% was subsidized with Dubai doesn't mean, this way of energy generation is more profitable. The only thing which I like on it is, it deals with the accumulation of energy. But it consumes huge area of farmland and its profitability is disputable anyway.

projects like this have been criticized in the past for producing too little power per square foot of land used. this argument has been used against solar power projects here in the u.s. one way to increase the efficiency of a site like this is to combine multiple types of power production. you can put down heat ex-changer pipes and pave the entire area with blacktop, and get more heat from the light that misses the mirrors and heats the ground, and maybe add a geothermal well or two. don't know how much power per sq. ft it would take the satisfy the 'environmentalists' who fight such large scale projects though....some people are never satisfied.

Thermal solar power with molten salt storage is indeed very promising, since it avoids the greatest problem with renewables - intermittency. The year capacity factor of this plant is 65%, something unheard of in the solar energy field.
The power plant is rated at 19,9 MW, with an area of 1 950 000 m2, and a cost of 230 million euros. There are further potential cost savings:
"In 2009, scientists at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) and SkyFuel teamed to develop large curved sheets of metal that have the potential to be 30% less expensive than today's best collectors of concentrated solar power by replacing glass-based models with a silver polymer sheet that has the same performance as the heavy glass mirrors, but at much lower cost and weight. It also is much easier to deploy and install. The glossy film uses several layers of polymers, with an inner layer of pure silver."

Still, it requires lots of land (per MW) and good insolation. Thats not everywhere.

.some people are never satisfied.

I'm sure, I'll be satisfied with cold fusion definitely. The cost of soil in Spain will fall down anyway, because of environmental crisis. They can start to invest the energy harvested into desalination of marine water. http://www.physor...ack.html

This project is a prime reason why green energy is a giant fraud in today's economy. According to their website it will produce 110 Million KWH of electricity / year. At 5 cents/KWH wholesale rates (without government subsidies) the plant will generate $5.5 Million a year in GROSS revenue. You have to deduct from that employee salaries, maintenance costs,depreciation (nothing works forever) and land taxes.

It cost $260 Million to construct. If you had to pay just 3% interest for the money it would cost you $7.8 million a year just for the interest and you would never pay off the loan. In fact, you would go bankrupt in just a few years.
So the bottom line is that it makes no sense without huge taxpayer subsidies.

The article claims that the project will be paid for in 18 years and nothing could be farther from the real truth.

No wonder Spain is almost bankrupt.

""The mechanism is "very easy to explain," he said: the panels reflect the suns rays on to the tower, transmitting energy at an intensity 1,000 times higher than that of the sun's rays reaching the earth.""

Why hasn't Obama invested our taxpayer money in THIS technology that actually WORKS? I can't believe that Spain is way ahead of us since last May. If American solar companies don't have what it takes to stay afloat and be productive. . .then fuggedaboutit. . .buy solar from Spanish companies. Or steal it. . .or something. Just DO it.

Again ritchie is too damn lazy to type WIKI:

"Commercial concentrated solar power plants were first developed in the 1980s. The 354 MW SEGS CSP installation is the largest solar power plant in the world, located in the Mojave Desert of California."

and

"the most developed are the parabolic trough..."

-which is what solyndra was making, and what obama funded. You dumbass.

The article claims that the project will be paid for in 18 years and nothing could be farther from the real truth.

Depends on what the price of oil and natural gas are going to do doesnt it?

No wonder Spain is almost bankrupt.

Well germany is not and they are investing heavily in solar:

"Germany is one of the world's top photovoltaics (PV) installers, with a solar PV capacity as of 2011 of almost 25 gigawatts (GW). The German solar PV industry installed about 7.5 GW in 2011, and solar PV provided 18 TWh (billion kilowatt-hours) of electricity in 2011, about 3% of total electricity. Some market analysts expect this could reach 25 percent by 2050."

Germany had one of the highest rates for electricity in Europe and is reducing funding for solar projects by large amounts. Green energy is still not competitive with fossil fuels and can only be afforded by countries that have a lot of extra money to spare.

VD what exactly does you power usage have to do with their ability to pay off a $260 Million Dollar loan??????

VD what exactly does you power usage have to do with their ability to pay off a $260 Million Dollar loan??????

You really think they wont do their math before lending out 260million$?

And setups like these can bring back dry land back to life by greatly reducing the temperature of the soil. Maybe culture some moss on the soil to sequester carbon in the soil.

"You really think they wont do their math before lending out 260million$?"

The whole project is based on huge subsidies i.e. your electric bill is much higher in order to pay for this. Consequently, industry in your area moves to a place where there are lower electric rates and you cannot find a job!!!!

"12 cents a KwH now seems to be the standard rate for electric power, so the plant should pull in 13.2 million per year, and pay for itself in 19.6 years."

VD that is the retail rate i.e. the rate that you pay. The wholesale rate in more like 5 cents per KWH. Someone had to pay for the grid and distribution to each home.

VD you are such a Bozo!! Look at your electric bill before you speak. Here in CT I pay almost 25 cents per KWH and you could be paying 11 cents at your home meter. The link that you posted does not represent wholesale rates to the grid.

And your point is ????????????????????

Post a link that points to to the wholesale price of electricity in Spain that has been generated by fossil fuels.

No its not a world first. The US had this type of solar power running a couple of years ago.
http://www.gizmag...t/17298/

No Farmland is wasted for this project. The problem in Sevilla, where this plant is located, is that there is not enough water to use all the farmland that exist, so there is a lot of available land for other use.

In addition Spain does not have petroleum and it has a big export deficit , so they really need renewable energies to reduce gas imports, even if it is costly at least they will pay this plant in euros to local investors, not by giving dollars to foreign countries. This kind of energy plant makes sense, at least in Spain.

They cost 260,000,000 to build one of these, we spent 2 trillion roughly on bailouts that means we could have built 7,692 of these solar arrays, and employed millions, using desert space, but this isn't exact because the number is not exactly 2 Trillion on bailouts and also we would need to do lots of work on the grid to sustain it. But assuming that its only 3,500 of these that can be built for the bailout amount that gives us 30,000 house holds times 3,500 which brings us to 105,000,000 million house holds not producing carbon. Also in 18 years the loan is paid off, allowing for a profit to the investors!

Put another way if we invested (US Gov) 1 Trillion as a subsidy it would add only 1 trillion to a 13 trillion deficit, and making it worth private investments and it would not putting us in a horrible deficit position comparatively considering the money in future wars we would save. Not to mention technological know how we could export to other countries which would be huge. Think of all the billions and trillions that companies are sitting on waiting for an investment to come along.

""the most developed are the parabolic trough..."

-which is what solyndra was making, and what obama funded. You dumbass."

Ghost,
You do realize that Solyndra went bankrupt, don't you...dumbass?

The problem is that all of you green liberals think that money is free since you get so much of it from the government. In reality, it costs a lot to borrow money and many projects cannot cover the cost to amortize the loan. The fact that the government is willing to subsidize these harebrained projects does not make them any more viable since the governments need to borrow the money and pay almost the same interest.

Let the free market system work to select the contractors who do the most work for the best price that meets good review of the legitimacy of the bids. Unlike the Big Dig in Massachusetts which ended up being poorly worked and ended up way over budget. Not to mention a project of this size can be broken down to into units and distributed at first as a trial basis among competing contractors. Then selecting the best 40% of contractors for further area's of implementation to get the best price and best workmanship be they unions or non-unions. Regulating them heavily. This is not a one or two year project but it would be spread over many years and millions of people.

In reality, it costs a lot to borrow money

What does money cost?

The fact that the government is willing to subsidize these harebrained projects does not make them any more viable

Clean energy deserve subsidies, they lessen the need for more dirty energy. They should tax the hell out of coal and oil that causes many illnesses, things like major brain damage and cancer and give that to clean projects.

Tax like the cigarette companies should be taxed and its executives put in jail, for causing millions of deaths, and huge hospital bills...

Right VD, your idol Obama has not spent in four years twice what Bush spent in 8 years. You are so biased that your sense of reality has been totally obscured.

I was talking a 1 Trillion addition to debt over a 10 to 20 year period of the project.

This argument is turned into hate speech against one party or the other. The fact is that the financial problem we are crawling away from is due to policy's as far back as the Clinton administration that were uncorrected by the lack of insight of the bush administration. There was an economic collapse that ensued because the problem was not addressed by the 8 years of the bush administration. If we had a president with a team of more insightful advisors we might have averted the choice between a bailout that would add terribly to our debt or a complete collapse of world economy for 10 to 20 years. My opinion to avoid the disaster that is to come with climate change we should have been investing in this technology. It may be too late to avoid an environmental meltdown but that doesn't mean we shouldn't be trying.

Put another way there is blame to be had on all parties, seeking short term political gains over the more distant welfare of the nation and world as a whole. Let invest the trillion over 10-20 years of this project and be done with foreign wars in nations holding the keys to oil production and be done with oil that kills the environment, people, and the future welfare of the world. I do not believe that Obama is the worlds savior, nor do I believe he is the devil. He is a president who is putting an end to two wars and fighting with an economy that would have been just as bad as the great depression for the world. As it stands we are slowly recovering from this horrible present caused by the past presidents. We have the future to concern our selves with long term debt, climate change, and extinction. We need to think smartly about the future, not the next 5 to 10 years but fifty years in the future when our planet will be 8 degrees warmer (occuring faster than any time in history)

All good points on the post, hikenboot. I too get tired of the Vendicar and Ritchie show. They should go private chat and let people discuss the solar station instead of the nonstop political crap flow.

People keep missing the facts that are in these projects that exist today, fact is climate is changing faster than evolution can keep up, which will cause a mass extinction. The climate will become more and more unpredictable, a party will get into the office on false claims and rhetoric that are lies and facts that only scratch the surface of truth. Time to setup a site that exposes all utterances from either party and shows the unbiased truth. Truth is truth but red herrings are everywhere. Only exposure of failings on both sides of the fence will enable us to come to a plan to tackle the future. We need a distributed think tank to come up with innovative ways to tackle the problems that we are facing. The saving graces of the technological singularity may come 20 years too late, so lets not wait for it to happen, lets act the best we can with what we have now making a better world for our descendants, or perhaps even our own futures as life expectancy rises exponentially.

""the most developed are the parabolic trough..."

-which is what solyndra was making, and what obama funded. You dumbass."

Ghost,
You do realize that Solyndra went bankrupt, don't you...dumbass?

Once again Ritchie proves he is too lazy to read or think. Ritchie says:

Why hasn't Obama invested our taxpayer money in THIS technology that actually WORKS?

And I showed that solyndra was in fact producing this technology. My god you're stupid.

So then Ritchie says:

It would be too expensive to build it in the U.S. because blah

-But Ritchie - myself and others have shown you that the largest facility of this type in the world sits in the Mohave desert, USA.

MY GOD YOU'RE STUPID.

RitchieGuy that is wonderful making money for foreign nations instead of addressing the problems with work in our own nation. Lets keep this close to home, until we get the technical know how of the project down and Americans are all back working again. Meanwhile investing in technological development and institutions which have in the past produced innovation for us, putting us back as the leader so that we reach the technological singularity first.

Economics is slightly out of my range of understanding but 1 euro = 1.3184 US dollars, but the article gives the 260,000,000 cost in US dollars. This leads me to believe that we could do it for the $260,000,000 US dollars. It would be interesting to note what the cost of making the solar arrays in the Mojave desert project. Also I was thinking about an example where USA failed to make an investment in what was the predecessor of the LHC. Had it gotten an additional year of funding it might have taken the credit for finding the God particle an opportunity sad to have missed. But I digress.

Admission of error accepted.

"I fessed up to rubberman already and I noted that the equator runs through central Africa." - RichieTard

"And why does this bit of geographical error put you in such a tizzy?" - RichieTard

Failure is as failure dose.

It is the sheer magnitude and frequency of ritchies ignorant pronouncements which warrants this type of response.

So what do you expect ritchie when you continue to post lazy and stupid things? Your lack of effort and restraint is an insult to all serious posters here at physorg. The people here ARE intelligent and responsible enough to react with outrage at every bit of absentminded nonsense you wish to drop here.

These people are not your inbred and overfed relatives and co-workers who might tend to tolerate your bullshit. Understand?

On the same note hikenboot, 41 of these projects could have built with just Exxons last quarter profits.

Ritchie, you really are over the line or have been drinking.
Chill out.

The newest proposed arrays in the Mojave are between 680 million and 1.6 billion USD.

GhostofShitto still follows me around misquoting me and pretending to know what it's talking about.

Naw I only continue to demonstrate how lazy and dumb you are. 1) the US has solar concentrator stations. 2) solyndra was building components for them. What bullshit are you going to post next?

The Ghost creature is a known cretin and has a god complex. . .so much so that it insists on teaching the membership of Physorg and becomes angry when members resist it

This is not a fucking club you dumbass. There are no members here, there are participants. Those who show others respect by researching what they say and refrain from posting empty flooding chitchat posts of the sort you do, are shown the proper respect. You have demonstrated your lack of respect for the site and for the others who participate here.

If this were a club you would've been out of here long ago.

The desert tortoise was endangered BEFORE the projects not BECAUSE of them.

Just want you guys to know that GhostoShitto is a crazy person and refuses to leave me and some others alone. Just ignore the ranting and insults that it thinks will affect somebody.

25 empty, thoughtless, ignorant posts to this thread alone in just 3 hours. Who the fuck do you think you are?

7,692 solar arrays produced in Mojave desert * 21.66% efficiency on the american side = 1666.6 solar arrays created for that same 2 Trillion dollars over 10 years * 30,000 house holds (which might also be an over estimate since americans consume a lot more electicity interesting to know what this ratio would be) but lets say we consume 3 times as much which would leave 10,000 house holds * 1666.6 = gives us 16,666,000 house holds...I would like to see this number better formulated based on number USA households and usage ratio and also based on 33% unneeded household waste due to easily eliminated wastes in our system and also adjusted based on the fact that prices fall as things scale up generally. Where would that put us?

I am not going to be drawn into the debate on failed solar projects.
Some succeed, some fail, thats all.

Perhaps this one will succeed, the region could certainly use a break.

This article is really old news, the plant IS almost a year old.
For those interested, the Forbes article "The World's First Baseload (24/7) Solar Power Plant" covers the subject in much greater detail. More info on the energy storage and video of the heliostats.
"Torresols Arias expects Gemasolar to produce electricity about 6,400 hours per year - a capacity factor of 75%. For comparison, the Hoover Dam has a capacity factor of just about 23% while Chinas Three Gorges hydro-electric power plant has a capacity factor of about 50%.(3) According to a 2003 study by Clemson University Prof Michael Maloney in 2003 the capacity factor of nuclear reactors in Japan, France, and the US were in the 65% to 72% range and the worldwide load factor was 69.4 percent." Japanese nuclear capacity not current. Ha Ha

RitchieGuy, that is not true exactly long distance transmission of electrical current is very efficient and even if it could only serve the needs of western USA, the results are the same, reduce carbon output by a large amount through production of non carbon producing methods effects us all by eliminating that percentage of carbon from the system. They say that if we decrease carbon to levels in the that we produced during the (eighty's) we might be able to avoid disaster. Also lets not forget that we could put Windmill's and other alternative energies in the mix to reach the optimal savings on carbon output. I believe we are grossly underestimating the will of america to beat the problem. Putting minds together and keeping channels of communication open will lead us to a result that is both efficient and cost effective. Eliminating personal attacks and red herrings in our speech and finding the true facts will help eliminate the mob mentality that will only serve to destroy us all.

Convert into gas and coal plants decommisioned or not built, and millions of tons of co2 and other crap not put in the air, and it looks really good. Oh well.

Efficiency that I am referring to is about the efficiency with which our homes and our data centers, home electronics, use electricity and the efficiency of the heating in homes that are effected by simple things like insulation and double/triple pane windows and vehicle fuel afficiency.

There are companies that specialise in putting solar on landfills.
From Photovolaics Market and Technology Magazine -
"PVN claims to have over 100 MW of solar installations in development through the country. In May they announced a deal to begin working on sites in New York, where Mayor Bloomberg hopes to install solar at 250 of the cities shuttered landfill sites. PVN already has projects underway in New Jersey and Delaware."

Read more: http://www. pv-magazine. com/ news/ details/ beitrag/ pvn-exploring-over-10-mw-californian-landfill-installation_100003419/#ixzz1pWuQZhjc

There must be 10 or maybe as many as 18 landfills closed in the eastern US. Sarcasm alert.

The panels track. see the Forbes article.

Datacenters could use DC instead of AC, servers could be placed where cooling occurs from natural outside temperature gradients, chips could be re-engineered not to use as much electricity by implementing a Mores law of efficiency, computers could be mandated that they have to be shut down in data centers when idle. The list goes on and on far more than I can remember to put here. I am talking about engineering a smarter system over the next 10 to 20 years on a Mores law like curve.

"Datacenters could use DC instead of AC..." Interesting thought there. FYI the google datacenter installed nearby was selected mostly on the proximity to cheap hydroelectric power.

Putting millions of people back to work with a solar project like that will have a 2 or 3 fold effect on expenditures. We could have tax breaks for spending a portion of that money on efficiency. Efficiency puts money into pockets, so start with a mandate about efficiency in data centers. Computer chips consume far more energy than does the human brain. They are designed to use lots of electricity to overcome limitations in current chips. Limitations that are theoretically overcome by re-engineering chips with technology that is possible today. So start a More's law of efficiency in 20 years time we will be much better off. Meanwhile move data centers to colder parts of the country like Alaska.

As a rule the designers of cpu's, and gpu's have energy consumption as one of the key factors. A LOT of effort goes into smaller lithography, and lower power consumption. Research stuff dude!

Most computer work can be done remotely anyways by utilizing cloud computing. Just make a mandate that only percentage of the jobs could be moved off shore asking for fair trade value of labor, which of course opens a whole new can of worms. But remember allowing jobs to go over seas is an inevitable cost. We just need protectionist measurements for a couple decades while we spend money on reinvesting in future technologies which has been lacking for the past 30 years at least. Which will give our population jobs for the future.

Research! Landfills are turning out to be a great place to put solar. They have been for a while. There are increasing numbers of companies that do this.

I don't care what Bloomerg has done. I just read the magazine.

Desal is desalination, not diesel.

Look stuff up. I grow weary of feeding your intellectual deficiencies. You win , I go away. Good night

Good ideas, hikenboot and tarheelchief.

EStevan57: computer chips are grossly inefficient look up the efficiency of our brains able to produce 2 trillion operations per second for a small, incy wincy fraction of our fastest world computers. Pushing for efficiency by starting a Moore's law of electrical efficiency will have a tremendous result in 20 years time. Building a resolve through legislation on this matter will have a great effect.

RitchieGuy: You must be out in the middle of america somewhere..congrads on a tough job. Your brain burns about 300 watts/hour I believe while huge supper computers capable of the same number of calculations per second as your brain consume huge amounts

"The K computer is the worlds fastest supercomputer at 10.51 petaflops. It consists of 88,000 SPARC64 VIIIfx CPUs, and spans 864 server racks. In November 2011, the power consumption was reported to be 12659.89 kW[69] The operating costs for the system are about $10M per year."

RitchieGuy: actually most of his policies to date have been moderate. He has not shown the pandering to the far left that people have accused him of doing. I can't name what all of them are, so ask some other politically minded independents who he has pandered to. But I am game if it takes getting rid of Obama and electing an independent then so be it so long as this country elects someone who will make the kinds of changes suggested by science, and engineers and not the mob at large.

At 5 cents/KWH wholesale rates (without government subsidies) the plant will generate $5.5 Million a year in GROSS revenue. If you had to pay just 3% interest for the money it would cost you $7.8 million a year just for the interest and you would never pay off the loan.

So by your own numbers it will be competitive with oil at $7.50 a gallon, EVEN WITHOUT THE UBIQUITOUS SUBSIDIES.

Obamas policies have been what would have come from a moderate Republican or Democrat 20 years ago.

I used to work at Intel (Hillsboro), and I can say that legislating what is already strived for won't make it happen sooner. Billions are spent on materials research, laser technology, etc. The relative inefficiency between brain and chip show what a tremendous thing the human brain is.

The kind of tech that should get state money, instead of costly wars. This has a serious return on progress and society. Economics is power for nations, not wars.

Im from England and I love the PHYSORG site, I find the articles to be very informative. I am not a scientist, and have only the most basic understanding of most of todays technologies.
One area of interest to me however is the advancements in alternative energies, particularly Solar power. I subscribe to the DESERTEC foundation website, well worth a look.
I Normally dont contribute to the comments section but I regularly get frustrated at some of the comments posted here from some individuals who consider themselves to be more knowledgeable and more highly skilled than the scientists that are out there at the sharp end, pioneering these technologies, people who sit in their armchairs and Rubbish the hard work being carried out today. People who are so short sighted that they make constant reference to the fact that solar energy and other such alternatives cant compete economically with fossil fuels. People who must spend hours calculating investment costs and financial return.

of cutting edge projects only to then state based on their estimations (and I think Estimation is being kind, probably wild guessing is nearer) how much of a bad idea these projects are.
Can you not see further than that? Has it not always been the way that new technologies are more expensive and then get gradually cheaper with economies of scale and incremental improvements as the years go by.
What about the damage to the planet caused by fossil fuels? And what about the fact that Fossil fuels wont last forever? We have to develop these technologies!
If these people were left in charge of their respective countries, they would sit in their offices, with their fingers in their ears and a blindfold over their eyes and wait until there were no more fossil fuels left and then start screaming and shouting in panic, and blaming everyone else when society descended into chaos.

There are companies that specialise in putting solar on landfills.

Which is a really good idea. Over here there are still landfill 'mountains' which have already been closed and covered with topsoil and plantations. The one near where I lived as a child now has a wind turbine on it (installed in 1999). PV panels on the south side are planned to follow in the near future.

Companies are putting up (or better 'laying down') PV panels along the highways. Most highways have noise protection embarkments or simply hills where they left the superfluous rubble from their construction which has been planted with grass and trees. Perfectly good places for PV panels that no one else is using.

There's also an idea to use the farmland that is currently not being used (due to crop rotation) by setting up 'mobile' PV arrays on them.

We need to invest heavily in technologies that can protect us from the effects of Super Volcano's (not even sure if its possible),Solar Flares (a new grid with equipment able to withstand this disaster something we need as soon as yesterday and an early warning electronics shutdown system), it's that imminent a possible disaster, and an asteroids detection system capable of detecting all the asteroids harmful to us in time to prevent disaster.

There is already chips in the lab (far way to go) that behave more like the brain that don't use but a small fraction of the energy of today's microchips. Not saying its ready for today but with the right push it could be ready in 20 years.

need to invest heavily in technologies that can protect us from the effects of Super Volcano's

Solar Flares

early warning electronics shutdown system

There is already chips in the lab (far way to go) that behave more like the brain

And all of this has to do with the article (or even the discussion so far in this comment section)...exactly how?

It's possible these technologies could be ready in 10, as I said apply a Moore's law to power efficiency and it will yield this result in 10 to 20 years. Power efficiency doubling every 18 months or so. All within the realm of possibility but would require changes to the manufacturing process of chips.

Power efficiency doubling every 18 months or so.

You cannot violate the laws of thermodynamics, for example the theoretical efficiency of Carnot's cycle.

antialias, read the chain of comments and it the reason for the comments will be revealed. But to make it easy for you it has to do with efficiency in respect to production of energy using solar collector arrays. If we are going to build it then we need to be able to protect ourselves against the things that are going to happen that will destroy it or destroy the sun as a source of energy for a period of time like an asteroid impact blocking the sun for 2-3 years.

Your brain is a million times more efficient than the super computers of today, we have a long way to go with efficiency before we violate any thermodynamic laws.

"Helped by generous state aid, renewable energies have enjoyed a boom"

Generously plundered from ordinary citizens so that as-yet-uneconomical technologies can have the illusion of premature industrial success. It's not state aid; it's the blood sweat, tears and tears of workers and innovators who are having the wealth they create stolen so the elite can pursue their whims. It's not generous; it's heartless.

or destroy the sun as a source of energy

I hate to tell you this, but if there is anything en route that can destroy the sun or influence the atmosphere in a way that no sunlight penetrates then there is nothing we can currently do about it. Maybe in ten thousand years or so. Maybe.

Solar flares haven't yet produced much of a problem for our energy infrastructure. The worst they have caused is to knock out a few old sattelites.

Your brain is a million times more efficient than the super computers of today,

A brain isn't a computer.
And the energy consumption on Earth is only minutely influenced by how efficient computer chips are (5% of residential and 6% of commercial energy use is electronics. Chips are only a fraction of that). We use a LOT more power for other things (industrial processes, transportation, heating). These areas are not subject to Moore's law.

Generously plundered from ordinary citizens

Are you aware that nuclear and fossil fuel energy production gets a multiple of what renewable gets in subsidies? And that all the environmental fallout that needs to be cleaned up (including higher health costs because of air pollution) is also generously plundered from your tax money?

Next time you do the math you might want to think about who is plundering you more: Big oil/nuclear or renewables.

This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Are you aware that nuclear & fossil fuel energy production gets a multiple of what renewable gets in subsidies? & that all the environmental fallout that needs to be cleaned up(including higher health costs because of air pollution)is also generously plundered from your tax money?
Next time you do the math you might want to think about who is plundering you more: Big oil/nuclear or renewables.

Did it ever cross ur mind renewables are receiving less subsidies because they're less profitable(evil word)? Tech which isn't profitable, doesn't grow the economy and create more wealth to go around. They just destroy it & therefor create less jobs. BTW, half the pollution problems from coal would be solved if the EPA would stop obstructing and let the industry develop coal gasification technology. Also, i don't support subsidies for any industry(nuclear). If we had genuine capitalism, we'd be running on LFTRs and gasification plants because they're the biggest pay off w/ least liability

for being sued by infringing on other's civil and private property rights.

Tech which isn't profitable, doesn't grow the economy and create more wealth to go around. They just destroy it & therefor create less jobs.

So let me try to understand this: Jobs are a valid argument for destroying the planet as well as keeping us on fuels that run out (and eventually destroy the jobs without first making an alternative available)? Does that sound logical?

And FYI: in geramny we now have as much electricity from renewables as from nuclear. The number of jobs in the renewable sector exceeds that of nuclear AND coal combined...and those in the nuclear sector aren't going to go away for a while since we'll need another 50 years or so until the last powerplant is dismantled)

Tech is profitable, creates jobs,and creates wealth. See IBM, Apple, Oracle, Intel, etc.

Genuine capitalism only really exists in the mind. It can be whatever a person wants it to be. That way it can be used as a reason to denigrate the actions of those who disagree with you.

What do you think about the project in the article above?

Jobs are a valid argument for destroying the planet as well as keeping us on fuels that run out (and eventually destroy the jobs without first making an alternative available)? Does that sound logical?

So let me understand this: The environment take priority over human beings and you think capitalism destroys jobs when history goes the other way? Why do think Spain and Italy are cutting their renewable energy programs? Because they're money pits. Environmentalism destroys jobs. You want to give BIG government the benefit of the doubt that command & control solutions are better than individuals voting with their wallets because u have no confidence in market bases solutions. Capitalism=Evolution. Societies can't even think about environmentalism w/o being a wealthy first. What do you think pays the subsidies for renewables? OIL. The best way government can help out is to sponsor x-prize competitions through tax breaks. This way, efficiency is the priority and not PR optics

OK, you had your rant, just like you wanted. Now we know your opinion on a subject totally unrelated to the article.

Same discussion, different forum.

Genuine capitalism only really exists in the mind. It can be whatever a person wants it to be. That way it can be used as a reason to denigrate the actions of those who disagree with you.

Don't assume the politics of other people are what you think they are. If you want to actually know someones opininion, it is better to ask than to force one on them. Rage on brother.

Estevan57, i said "tech which isn't profitable" and not all technologies. Of course private sector companies like IBM, Apple, Oracle, Intel, Google, Facebook, are profitable. They pull their own weight because they benefit the customer. Projects like the solar plant in Spain ultimately do not benefit the customer because it's not competitive at satisfying customer demand. 19 year pay off is big liability and a long time to wait while giving the benefit of the doubt that unforeseen problems won't arise.
I think eSolar is more promising because they're using cheaper off the shelf parts which are already in circulation in the economy and they say their about at parity with coal. If they mass produced their prototype plant into a larger solar array, i'm pretty confident they would do even better. I'm not sure if they have any sort of energy storage thou. But they're an interesting company non the less. http://www.esolar...olution/

Why do think Spain and Italy are cutting their renewable energy programs?

Because they have lived above their means for the past few decades and are now deep in big fiscal trouble. Currently they can't afford to go full tilt on such programs. They do require an initial investment.

Environmentalism destroys jobs.

The numbers say something else. In germany 30k jobs in the nuclear sector vs. 100k in the wind energy sector and another 100k in the solar sector. Expected to increase to 500k in the entire renewables sector by 2050.

What do you think pays the subsidies for renewables? OIL

You are aware that oil gets subsidized, too? About 40bn a year in the US.
These are masked by such thing as "Foreign Tax Credit" and "Credit for Production of Nonconventional Fuels"

And almost half the subsidies for renewables goes to corn based bioethanol (which probably isn't the smartest renewable source out there)

Because they have lived above their means for the past few decades and are now deep in big fiscal trouble. Currently they can't afford to go full tilt on such programs.

Then why are their renewable energy programs among the first to be cut?

In germany 30k jobs in the nuclear sector vs. 100k in the wind energy sector and another 100k in the solar sector. Expected to increase to 500k in... 2050.

Are they public sector jobs or private sector jobs? If the latter, then i would be more confident. But if the former, then i wouldn't be because government is dependent upon tax payer support from the private sector. Tax revenue comes from the private sector & not the public sector.

You are aware that oil gets subsidized, too? About 40bn a year in the US.

I'm aware they receive TAX SUBSIDIES and not subsidies. Meaning they keep more profits if they invest in new capital but they don't receive money from the gov. Do u you think developing countries r subsidizing coal & oil?

Many solar energy systems are profitable long before the actual bank loan is paid off. The loan is the last obligation to be paid not because of the finances required, but because it keeps the tax credit available.

Esolar is pretty small potatoes compared to the facility described in the article. No molten salt technology, no 24 hours a day capability. 6mw installed.

In Oregon where I live, SolarWorld alone employs 1,000 in Hillsboro, and Sanyo Solar in Salem employs 200. Employs means they have jobs.

"The amount of energy we produce a year is equal to the consumption of 30,000 Spanish households," Arias said, an annual saving of 30,000 tonnes of CO2."
30,000 customers needs being met.

"Then why are their renewable energy programs among the first to be cut?" Capitalismpestering.

All programs are being cut in Spain. European recession and all. Massive debt. Diminishing tax income etc. 32% Unemployment is pretty high.

Read the article:
"For now, the economic crisis has nevertheless cast a shadow over this kind of project: Spain is battling to slash its deficit as it slides into recession and has suspended aid to new renewable energy projects.

Andalusia, hard hit by the economic crisis with the country's highest unemployment rate at 31.23 percent, holds regional elections on March 25.

"We have three projects ready but stalled" because of the aid suspension, Arias said, admitting that in a difficult global economy the group has not managed to sell the Gemasolar techology abroad despite huge interest outside Spain.

Are they public sector jobs or private sector jobs? If the latter, then i would be more confident.

All of them private sector. There are no public sector power plants.

so the plant should pull in 13.2 million per year, and pay for itself in 19.6 years

It's nothing very special, the similar payback period is common for nuclear plants.

Richie admitting he is a farmer explains his scientific/Enviromental credentials very well indeed! No wonder he is wrong factually pretty much all the time.

Since people are mentioning nuclear plants, it's possible to build nuclear plants that burn different fuel than Uranium, that is impossible to have a melt down and also that have a huge amount less waste than the current reactors. The only reason we have used Uranium in the past is because the fuel for the plants come from the same processes that are used to make fissile material for nuclear bombs.

I was hoping someone might have reliable data on the average home use of electricity in spain.

Data like this in 2010, the average annual electricity consumption for a U.S. residential utility customer was 11,496 kWh, an average of 958 kilowatthours (kWh) per month. Tennessee had the highest annual consumption at 16,716 kWh and Maine the lowest at 6,252 kWh.

It might make some of the calculations in this argument more accurate as well as knowing the average efficiency rating of spanish vs american homes...anyone?

Spain uses about half per capita
http://en.wikiped...r_capita
(though the numbers are from 2003)

"7,692 solar arrays produced in Mojave desert * 21.66% efficiency on the american side = 1666.6 solar arrays created for that same 2 Trillion dollars over 10 years * 30,000 house holds (which might also be an over estimate since americans consume a lot more electicity interesting to know what this ratio would be) but lets say we consume 3 times as much which would leave 10,000 house holds * 1666.6 = gives us 16,666,000 house holds...I would like to see this number better formulated based on number USA households and usage ratio and also based on 33% unneeded household waste due to easily eliminated wastes in our system and also adjusted based on the fact that prices fall as things scale up generally. Where would that put us?" this previous estimate on my part is wrong

Since we have 2x as much electicity used per capita in USA that means we would take care of 15,000 homes per array * 1666.6=24,999.00 homes needs we would take care of for 2 trillion.

but lets assume that we can improve efficiency economically by only 10% lets say putting insulation around water heaters and such in all households and other easy fixes like that would effectively add 10% to that number or 16,500 homes instead of 15,000 we would have 27,498,900 homes converted to solar energy. But lets not stop there. Lets assume (a wild guess) that economies of scale lets us produce the each of the 1666.6 solar arrays for 50% of the cost which is a conservative number. that gives us 2499.9 solar arrays produced for the two trillion= 16,500 homes times 2499.9=41,248,350 homes converted to solar energy out of 2010 estimate: 114,825,428 homes in USA, which represents 35.922% of households not producing CO2 or saving 17.5 tons per household (household number for 2008 estimate) for each household which means a total savings of 721,846,125 tons if we create the arrays at 43% efficiency of Spain. An estimate I am sure we can beat with significant oversight and control.

this still leaves us with 20% easy (but some what costly waste of energy to get rid of. It also doesn't account for the fact that some areas such as the North East are better supplied by wind power, leaves out biomass from all of the dumps we have, and many other ingenious methods of producing energy cheaply. Oh which reminds me, I don't think ethanol is a good bet, but that's for a later discussion.

Lets say we also throw nuclear in the mix, using reactors based on alternatives to Uranium, that can't have a melt down that produce far less waist and recycle a lot more.

There we have it a energy solution for the future where we don't spend lots of money on wars to protect our energy sources, and we serve to piss off a lot less crazy people in the world, with troublesome foreign policies and we would have a technology that we can export to other countries. Not to mention all the technologies that would come out of it, such as production of concrete that absorbs CO2 instead of creating it by using up ash byproducts, producing concrete that lasts much longer and is much stronger to boot.

Are these the guys who were caught generating power with diesel generators at night when subsidies were so high?

NotParker: what guys are you referring to? Or is this just another red herring?

NotParker: what guys are you referring to? Or is this just another red herring?

"After press reports, it was established during inspections that several solar power plants were generating current and feeding it into the net at night. To simulate a larger installation capacity, the operators connected diesel generators.

"This is just the tip of the iceberg," said one industry expert to the newspaper "El Mundo", which brought the scandal to light. If solar systems apparently produce current in the dark, will be noticed sooner or later. However, if electricity generators were connected during daytime, the swindle would hardly be noticed."

http://bishophill...rue.html

Why hasn't Obama invested our taxpayer money in THIS technology that actually WORKS? I can't believe that Spain is way ahead of us since last May. If American solar companies don't have what it takes to stay afloat and be productive. . .then fuggedaboutit. . .buy solar from Spanish companies. Or steal it. . .or something. Just DO it.

Sandia Labs has operated a solar array exactly like this one for a few decades. They are still trying to optimize its design. The salts, for one thing, are corrosive, and hard on the equipment. Other large solar projects have stalled, as environmental groups have protested disturbing desert habitat.

Question for NotParker: So you have established that some cheating has been going on at installations. Can you please name the stations so that we can research the facts, which ones does it apply to. Do you have a police or court report? Can you verify these "alleged actions"? Hearsay evidence is useless. So please produce facts!

So please produce facts!

http://www.elmund...308.html

"According to government data, between November and January, in winter, the electrical system was 4,500 megawatts / hour produced by solar plants between midnight and seven o'clock, plus another 1,500 between 1900 and 2300 hours.

How are these megawatts generated? Early indications, some developers might be using photovoltaic generators fueled with diesel to generate electricity, because the premiums are from 436 euros a megawatt."

NotParker
http://www.busine...ion.html
This is a more reputable source for the articles you bring up. But strangely it has been removed. Can anyone get this article? I am willing to bet that it was taken down after it was found not to be true. But if someone has a businessweek subscription I would love to see it. I would also like to see the outcome of this court involvement.

http://wn.com/sec...y=rating <<--case for thorium nuclear reactor

This is a more reputable source...

El Mundo has a good reputation for scandals.

"El Mundo has played a key role in uncovering several scandalsamong them embezzlement by the commander of the Guardia Civil, and accusations of insider trading and tax fraud by the governor of the Central Bank of Spain. Investigative reporting by the staff of El Mundo also revealed connections between the terrorist Grupos Antiterroristas de Liberación (GAL) and the Socialist administration of Felipe González, revelations that contributed to his defeat in the 1996 elections."

NotParker: do you have anything further on the subject, like recent findings by the court which was to investigate the problem? Anyone have this article http://www.busine...ion.html ? I am looking for proof that this the array we are pointing to for data is the one that is being charged in the matter. Also its an old article so there must be an update on it somewhere? If it can't be substantiated then its just rumor.

do you have anything further on the subject

"But an ongoing investigation by Spanish authorities has so far unearthed nearly 4,200 photovoltaic installations that were falsely registered as being online by a 30 September deadline in order to receive higher levels of subsidy from power companies."

http://www.barcel...f_fraud/

http://www.theoli...n-spain/

NotParker:
From the article you produced it says and I quote:
"But an ongoing investigation by Spanish authorities has so far unearthed nearly 4,200 photovoltaic installations that were falsely registered as being online by a 30 September deadline in order to receive higher levels of subsidy from power companies. According to the CNE report, however, none of the questionable installations, which are located in 1,447 or 13.3% of the country's solar parks, is actually producing any power."

""Those that are 'in the light' that is, they're producing; those that are 'in the shade', which means they are finished but are not connected yet; and those that are 'in the dark', which aren't finished. The ones that are in the dark are fraudulent, and they should be punished. But some of the ones in the shade aren't online because the local infrastructure isn't ready for them."

Where's the proof this applies to Torresol Energy Gemasolar plant in Fuentes de Andalucia near Seville?

Prove that this is not one of the legit sites!

The purpose of looking at this plant is for a comparison of cost to do the same in the USA.

So before dismissing it as illegitimate, let's produce evidence showing that fact. I am as anxious as you to get legitimate numbers and do the calculations as are you.

As much as I believe solar is a good solution I feel that Thorium nuclear reactors are a better bet, but in the US I doubt the politics would support building and replacing conventional reactors that are running, stupidly...

I believe in significant oversight, and inspections should be in place if government is to subsides these installations should be the same as with oversight on the stock market practices. Had we been monitoring the stock market, and had we implemented proper distributions of credit we never would have had a market crash in the first place.

Prove that this is not one of the legit sites!

The purpose of looking at this plant is for a comparison of cost to do the same in the USA.

So before dismissing it as illegitimate, let's produce evidence showing that fact. I am as anxious as you to get legitimate numbers and do the calculations as are you.

As much as I believe solar is a good solution I feel that Thorium nuclear reactors are a better bet, but in the US I doubt the politics would support building and replacing conventional reactors that are running, stupidly...

Sadly this site has a vocal minoraty such as Parker who generally dont answer questions honestly hence the reason he has yet to giv you the evidence you are asking him for.

"The UKs Daily Mail has reported the cost of this small first-of-a-kind plant to be £260million, or about US $419M. This equates to a quite pricey $33 per average Watt delivered, several times higher than the cost of wind, geothermal, or nuclear. "

http://theenergyc...t-pricey

Coal is about $2.10 per Watt delivered.

NotParker: that is not the same array installation as the one we referred to when we were doing the calculations the first time, and it's considerably pricier than the installation we were talking about. What's the big difference? Looks like someone may have mistakenly changed the money from Spanish to US currency when the data was given in US dollars in the first place, but that's only a speculative guess.

NotParker:

http://en.wikiped...Facility

This facility in the USA will produce power at 5.61 Watts/dollar or .1781 dollars/watt where on earth are you getting $33 dollars for every watt? That can't be right.

NotParker:
The investment cost exceeds 200 million euros ($260 million)... right from the article listed above on this notice notice the exchange rate has changed so as of right now the exchange rate is 200,000,000 euros = 266109964.6207 US Dollars so your numbers are coming from some where non factual.

As I have said before I am interested in solar only because the other more viable method of Thorium reactors will probably not be accepted in the US because of the bad name of nuclear even though the thorium reactors don't go boom and don't produce the scariest of nuclear waste. So I am not someone who blindly accepts solar. In fact I think for the north east corridor excluding thorium reactors, the best we can do is with existing dams and off shore wind farms. It makes sense from the perspective it saves on some of the build up of transmission infrastructure. However I will note that the transmission infrastructure should be renewed for other reasons mainly its inability to withstand the worst solar flares put out by the sun, and could turn into a 2 trillion dollar disaster bringing the world to a halt for many years...but that's a different story.

This facility in the USA will produce power at 5.61 Watts/dollar or .1781 dollars/watt where on earth are you getting $33 dollars for every watt? That can't be right.

The Spanish one has storage. Storage costs a lot.

Read the article:
"As a result, the plant produces 60 percent more energy than a station without storage capacity because it can work 6,400 hours a year compared to 1,200-2,000 hours for other solar power stations, he said."

The storage enables the off hours use of the produced energy,
ya TROLL!

Estevan57:

It certainly does not seem like the numbers 33 dollars/watt could be right, that's an unacceptable cost increase to get storage. Obviously with numbers like that it seems more like a viable option for daytime production only, which is fine, still majorly reduces our carbon foot print and that is a major goal of it. Using existing power plants at night seems like it would be a viable way to still reduce our carbon footprint until such time as Thorium reactors are put in place to take up the slack. Multiple solutions are a viable response, for instance wind power picks up during the evening does it not?

still majorly reduces our carbon foot print

No. It makes zero difference to the global carbon footprint.

One power station switching from coal to NG makes a huge difference compared to this expensive toy.

Thankfully shale gas (hated by environmentalists) has arrived.

Why is it hated so by fanatics?

Why is it hated so by fanatics?

Probably because
1) It's also a net addition to the CO2 balance of the atmosphere
2) To get shale gas out you have to pump some nasty, NASTY stuff down there - destroying groundwater reservoirs in the process and poisoning the soil for, basically, ever.

NotParker: I dont know how you can say its an expensive toy. It works and generates energy, exactly what it was designed to do, and disregarding the fact that its not the best night time solution. It still produces energy during peak times and an array as I have previously shown could produce a large portion of our electricity. Coal is not the way to go, neither is shale, for obvious reasons. It pollutes everything...If you want to go with something other than solar then become a proponent of thorium nuclear reactors, it makes sense.

It's also a net addition to the CO2 balance of the atmosphere

Shale gas produces 50% of the CO2 than coal for the same amount of heat.

It would be a net drop in Co2 (not that I care - but you pretend to)

To get shale gas out you have to pump some nasty, NASTY stuff down there - destroying groundwater reservoirs

Not very nasty. Many states require a list of those chemicals.

The fracking takes place 1000s of feet below ground water.

Do you see why sane people consider ALL ENVIRONMENTALISTS LIARS.

You make stuff up to support your pathological hatred of progress.

Many states require a list of those chemicals.

having a list makes them automatically safe? You mean like this:
http://www.frackc...lutants/

or this

http://www.hcn.or...cocktail

Natural methane leaks are quite common in areas where there is methane trapped in shale.

However, "wetlands contribute from 53% to 58% of global methane emissions and that rice paddies are responsible for more than a quarter of that output. "

Stop eating rice. And drain the swamps.

Jobs!

http://www.northc...d-states

NotParker:

Obviously the only thing you care about is the bottom line in dollars. Shale is the dirtiest method yet of getting fuel for the fire. Too bad for the Canada residents who live there. Screw them let them destroy their environment to help you out of having to admit there is more ways to do things than just your way. Your a propagandist. And I mean that with the highest level of respect. (Which isn't much!!!)

If I am wrong and you are not just a propagandist, then look into thorium nuclear, besides the bad name of nuclear, it is a clean solution with less than 1 percent of the waste of Uranium reactors and that is short lived waste compared to Uranium waste and it can be used to get ride of waste of conventional reactors.

Too bad for the Canada residents who live there. Screw them

then look into thorium nuclear,

So you're saying: Screw the Thorium miners instead?

Mining Thorium isn't without its problems.
http://www.google...Nkh9qrZQ

Uranium isn't vitamin anyway. The problem with thorium is, it's not fissile and reactors, which would enable to use it are even more dangerous, than the existing generation.

Callippo that is completely false....screw thorium miners that's not true either thorium is an abundant element that is in high content and doesn't take much to get a life times supply. Proper handling on the part of the miners and their equipment will handle the problems with it. It's much much safer than the Uranium we currently use.

Shale is the dirtiest method yet of getting fuel for the fire.

No. Shale is the biggest threat to grotesquely expensive wind and solar. Thats why lies are fabricated and pimped.

Shale is clean compared to every fuel. Even cleaner than filthy wind and solar with the evil and filthy rare earth minerals.

shale is pumping crap into the ground, its just a matter of time before it comes back up! And who knows where that will be!

Taking advantage of all that is available for wind energy on great lakes alone would produce enough power for 210,000,000 homes but would produce many problems with mining of its own so its the same with solar panels(not concave mirrors or reflectors).

Desert doesn't contain much wild life, what wild life there is would appreciate the shade of the array of mirrors is my guess. So building an array of arrays of mirrors would be the least environmentally intrusive of any production method, however there would be environmental costs to upgrading the grid, but that has to be done anyways, due to the potential devastating problems with solar flairs. An array of arrays would buy us fifty years, so wouldn't thorium using existing stock piles of Uranium.

shale is pumping crap into the ground, its just a matter of time before it comes back up! And who knows where that will be!

Sounds like you've had a religious type experience.

The Church of Eco-loons.

Desert doesn't contain much wild life, what wild life there is would appreciate the shade of the array of mirrors is my guess. So building an array of arrays of mirrors would be the least environmentally intrusive of any production method,

Nonsense. Desert ecosystems would be permanently damaged.

http://www.physor...181.html

The footprint of shale gas exploration is way smaller and far less environmentally damaging.

NotParker: why don't you move to Canada to the town where they pump the crap down and drink plenty of the water, take lots of showers, clean your hands with water often, and make sure you have a swimming pool you fill regularly and eat all the fish that you can get from local streams? Then come back and say the same thing? Woburn water supply in Massachusetts comes to mind...

NotParker: why don't you move to Canada

I hear the wind turbines slaughter millions of birds in Canada. And the nuclear reactors in Canada are poisoning the water too.

http://www.physor...181.html

"Sandquist hopes designers of large solar and wind projects will try to avoid the most harmful effects."

Similar to the approach with cutting forests in patches spread out over a larger area in a checkerboard would probably negate the effects, although I leave it to scientists to decide how to avoid negative effects.
"Even minor changes to desert solar projects could protect the variety of organisms that dwell there, he said. Instead of building roads, for example, operators of arrays that require few visits for maintenance might consider buying larger trucks and just driving over the existing plants"

Looks to me like a little prior planning could negate the worst of the effects.

But as I previously said Thorium reactors would buy us 25-50 years while burning our enriched uranium since it only takes a small amount of fissile material. This buys us time to develop alternate energy sources if we are smart enough to keep investing in research

"I hear the wind turbines slaughter millions of birds in Canada.

http://www.thewhi...ive=true

"A conservation organization reviewing the number of birds and bats killed by the wind turbines on Wolfe Island is calling the numbers "extremely high."

A consultant's report estimates that 1,270 bats and 602 birds were killed by the island's 86 turbines from July 1 to Dec. 31 of last year, the project's first months of operation.

"I really believe there never should have been an industrial-type wind farm built on Wolfe Island," said Ted Cheskey, manager of bird conservation for Nature Canada."

When I say scientists I mean scientists that don't stand to get rich off of suggesting there is no impacts, like those that are for shale gas exploration.

Vendi I have been trying to figure out where you got 200,000 reactors from. can you please explain?

Vendi: I get the following calculation please correct me where I am wrong if I am so

430503490956 watts/yr /100 MW per plant gives us 4268 power plants for 100% USA electric needs!!!

3,741,000,000 MW-H/Yr * 114.077116 Watts total=
430,503,490,956 watts/yr

3,741,000,000 MW-H/Yr * 114.077116 Watts total=
430,503,490,956 watts/yr

The US generated: 340,743 thousand megawatt hours in January 2012.

340,743,000,000,000 watt hours in one month.

http://205.254.13...csum.pdf

To my knowledge there has never been a substantive leak of radiation into the environment from any Canadian power reactor.

Uranium has to be mined.

http://myhydros.o...n-water/

and then attempts to save himself with a referenced claim to 602 bird deaths

At one wind farm, for 6 months. And those are just the bodies stumbled across.

Millions of birds and bats.

Trillions of uneaten insects spreading disease.

In 2003 we used 12 billon KwHours per day * 365 = 4,380,000,000,000,000 kwHours per year Divided by 500,000,000,000 Watts (500 GW)per power plant = 8,760 power plants to supply 100% of US power usage is the right figure.

http://www.youtub...embedded

Another solar plant goes bankrupt.

http://wattsupwit...re-60583

In 2003 we used 12 billon KwHours per day * 365 = 4,380,000,000,000,000 kwHours per year Divided by 500,000,000,000 Watts (500 GW)per power plant = 8,760 power plants to supply 100% of US power usage is the right figure.

The Spanish plant only works 17 hours a day on average in a very sunny climate.

NotParker:

Your loosing your attention span..I was referring to nuclear reactor based on the use of Thorium and using a little Uranium to start the reaction ( a little is needed as I said existing stock piles will be put to use supplying the uranium) Until we develop other technologies for providing energy such as nuclear fusion which will supply us endlessly.

NotParker:

Your loosing your attention span..I was referring to nuclear reactor based on the use of Thorium and using a little Uranium to start the reaction ( a little is needed as I said existing stock piles will be put to use supplying the uranium) Until we develop other technologies for providing energy such as nuclear fusion which will supply us endlessly.

Shale Gas Methane Hydrates = 1000 years of cheap fossil fuel electricity.

There is no need to do anything else until then.

"It is the first station in the world that works 24 hours a day, a solar power station that works day and night!" said Santago Arias, technical director of Torresol Energy, which runs the station."

Do you read these articles Notparker, or do you spout your troll talk - anti everything but gas and coal regardless of the subject at hand?

The Smithsonian Conservation Biology Institute states that 500 million to 1 billion birds are killed by cats alone in the US yearly.

Do you read these articles Notparker

Yes. Do you?

"because it can work 6,400 hours a year"

6400 / 365 = 17.5 hours a day.

The Smithsonian Conservation Biology Institute states that 500 million to 1 billion birds are killed by cats alone in the US yearly.

None of them are protected raptors.

"A WHITE-TAILED sea eagle introduced to the Killarney National Park from Norway just three years ago has been found dead below a wind turbine..."

http://raptorpoli...turbine/

Both numbers are stated on the website, with an average yearly of the number you stated, but the ability to provide power at night is the important feature.

I care not for raptors anyway, they don't cook well.
How many are killed by these deadly solar energy barbecues?

While every energy technology has a downside, the downside of oil, gas, and coal energy far outweigh the downside of the alternatives. Dead birds and the high costs of emerging technologies are far better than tons of noxious gasses, ruined water, and airborne particles from the old ones, regardless of the climate issue.

Both numbers are stated on the website, with an average yearly of the number you stated, but the ability to provide power at night is the important feature.

Some nights. But not the whole night. You'll still need spinning reserve, probably gas.

Solar is for people who want to bankrupt their country as the Spanish and Germans are finding out.

"Solar is for people who want to bankrupt their country as the Spanish and Germans are finding out." NotRenewableParker
My friend, you are the most imaginative troll I have ever seen, congratulations. Slippery as an eel and indefatiguable.

So, give me a list of countries that are going bankrupt BECAUSE of solar energy investment. Please explain why, that in this global economy, solar power alone is bankrupting the countries named. If you are going to introduce a subject perhaps a little background on that subject?

"So, give me a list of countries that are going bankrupt BECAUSE of solar energy investment.

Italy

http://junkscienc...ar-bill/

Spain

http://www.pv-tec...bt_looms

Germany

http://www.spiege...,00.html

NotParker:

There not going bankrupt because of solar, they are going bankrupt for poor money management and as a result of the economic crisis in the USA which has brought everyone down...

NotParker:

There not going bankrupt because of solar, they are going bankrupt for poor money management and as a result of the economic crisis in the USA which has brought everyone down...

Poor money management = committing to grossly overpriced solar

Doing everything in your power to HUGELY INCREASE the cost of doing business is very, very stupid and economic suicide.

The US has squandered 100s of billions on green suicide too.

Please explain why, that in this global economy, solar power alone is bankrupting the countries named.

Please explain why, that in this global economy, solar power alone is bankrupting the countries named.

"But Calzada's study found that for every four jobs created by Spain's expensive green technology program, nine jobs were lost.

Electricity generated was so expensive that each "green" megawatt installed in the power grid destroyed five jobs elsewhere in the economy by raising business costs."

"Spain's green technology dream was costing the nation more than $15 billion a year before the government had to slash it because it had failed and Spain was going broke."

http://www.cbn.co...America/

Christian Broadcasting Network? Nice source.

Estevan - here is the actual study the CBN reports about:
http://www.juande...able.pdf

Better?

Actually, I did find it myself, thank you. It looks like they got themselves in a heck of a financial mess, but certainly not only because of the investment in solar. The excesses of the government are well documented, with a housing and construction bubble equal to or even greater than the US, as measured by GDP.

Enough to cause the downfall of the Socialist government that got them there.

My windmill is going especially fast today. :)

It looks like they got themselves in a heck of a financial mess, but certainly not only because of the investment in solar.

The whole green jobs thing drove industry out of Spain,increased unemployment, drove down the standard of living and helped bankrupt the country.

If the green insanity had not been started Spain would be in much better shape. As would Italy and others.

It was like a giant Bernie Madhoff scheme that utterly destroyed the investors - the people of Spain.

Youth unemployment is over 50% in Spain. Those people have no future.

The excesses of the Spanish government are well documented, with a housing and construction bubble equal to or even greater than the US, as measured by GDP. Its education is one of the poorest of modern nations, has high inflation, had a trade deficit of 10% of GDP, and more. When construction and housing is 16% or your economy and the real estate bubble bursts, unemployment is a result. Sound familiar?
At its peak in 2007, construction had expanded to a massive 16% of the total gross domestic product of the country and 12% of total employment.

"The whole green jobs thing drove industry out of Spain,increased unemployment, drove down the standard of living and helped bankrupt the country." Explain how please?

Spain has to import all of its fossil fuels. Spain is the world's number three LNG market behind Japan and Korea. Based on 2010 Spain imported as much as China and India combined.

Are you suggesting the youth of Spain drown themselves!?
You fiend!

As I have said my many posts about the efficacy of Thorium Nuclear Reactors still stands as the best solution all around. They will be many many times cheaper to build 100 MW reactors than building conventional nuclear reactors, and they do not pollute the atmosphere and if existing stock piles are used for Uranium then they have an exceedingly good environmental foot print all around, and they can't (physically impossible) to go boom! 10,800 of them would handle 100% of USA's energy and would not contribute to nuclear proliferation and can be used to solve existing problems with Iran and "peaceful motives" of using nuclear for energy needs rather than weapons (killing their big excuse) the first Thorium reactor with good investment could be made within 5 years.

The excesses of the Spanish government are well documented, with a housing and construction bubble equal to or even greater than the US, as measured by GDP. Its education is one of the poorest of modern nations, has high inflation, had a trade deficit of 10% of GDP, and more.

And all of problems would have been less with lower deficits and cheaper energy. Economies reach a tipping point of stupidity.

Green energy was the stupidest idea possible in Spain's economic circumstances.

The only reason the US is not further underwater is shale gas and coal.

About time: http://www.reuter...20100419

NotParker:

I wonder if you will ever stop talking, I doubt it, your probably being compensated for the constant dribble. Spend that effort on real solutions that bring unity.