Thermosolar power station in Spain works at night

Mar 18, 2012 by Katell Abiven
The Torresol Energy Gemasolar plant in Fuentes de Andalucia near Seville. The unique thermosolar power station in southern Spain can shrug off cloudy days: energy stored when the sun shines lets it produce electricity even during the night.

A unique thermosolar power station in southern Spain can shrug off cloudy days: energy stored when the sun shines lets it produce electricity even during the night.

The Gemasolar station, up and running since last May, stands out in the plains of Andalusia.

From the road between Seville and Cordoba, one can see its central tower lit up like a beacon by 2,600 solar mirrors, each 120 square metres (28,500 square feet), that surround it in an immense 195-hectare (480-acre) circle.

"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.

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.

Energy is stored in a vat filled with molten salts at a temperature of more than 500 degrees C (930 F). Those salts are used to produce steam to turn the turbines and produce electricity.

It is the station's capacity to store energy that makes Gemasolar so different because it allows the plant to transmit power during the night, relying on energy it has accumulated during the day.

The Crown Prince of Abu Dhabi (left) with Spain's King Juan Carlos at last year's opening of the solar power plant. Torresol Energy is a joint venture between the Spanish engineering group Sener, which holds 60 percent, and Abu Dhabi-financed renewable energy firm Masdar.

"I use that energy as I see fit, and not as the sun dictates," Arias explained.

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

"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.

Helped by generous state aid, renewable energies have enjoyed a boom in Spain, the world number two in solar energy and the biggest producer in Europe, ahead of Germany.

For the Gemasolar solar product, helped too: Torresol Energy is a joint venture between the Spanish engineering group Sener, which holds 60 percent, and Abu Dhabi-financed renewable energy firm Masdar.

It is the station's capacity to store energy that makes Gemasolar so different because it allows the plant to transmit power during the night, relying on energy it has accumulated during the day.

"This type of station is expensive, not because of the raw material we use, which is free solar , but because of the enormous investment these plants require," Arias said.

The investment cost exceeds 200 million euros ($260 million).

But "the day when the business has repaid that money to the banks (in 18 years, he estimates), this station will become a 1,000-euro note printing machine!," he said, recalling that oil prices have soared from $28 a barrel in 2003 to nearly $130.

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 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.

Explore further: Self-cooling solar cells boost power, last longer

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Spain to cut subsidies to photovoltaic energy sector

Aug 02, 2010

The government of Spain, a world leader in renewable energy, said it plans to cut subsidies for photovoltaic solar plants by up to 45 percent as it seeks to slash spending amid the economic crisis.

Abu Dhabi to build 'world's largest' solar plant

Jun 09, 2010

French oil firm Total and Spain's Abengoa Solar will partner with Abu Dhabi's alternative energy company Masdar to build "the world's largest" concentrated solar power plant, Masdar announced on Wednesday.

Wind power in Spain reaches historic high

Mar 31, 2011

Wind power became Spain's main source of electricity for the first time ever this month, in a country renowned for its focus on renewable energy, the power-generating authority REE said Thursday.

Recommended for you

User comments : 243

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

RitchieGuy
2.1 / 5 (26) Mar 18, 2012
""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.
Vendicar_Decarian
Mar 18, 2012
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Vendicar_Decarian
3.2 / 5 (14) Mar 18, 2012
Solyndra didn't have what it takes. But then they were bankrupted by the Chinese - who don't want competition in the PV market.

The Chinese are playing to win.

Conservatives on the other hand are busy sending America's manufacturing sector to the Pacific Rim in order to maximize Corporate Profits, and so that Americans will grow strong and wealthy purchasing cheap Chinese Products like plastic laundry baskets and large screen TV's with money largely borrowed from China.

Well done... Well done.

"If American solar companies don't have what it takes to stay afloat and be productive. . .then fuggedaboutit" - RichieTard
Callippo
1.6 / 5 (16) Mar 18, 2012
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.
PaulRC
4.4 / 5 (8) Mar 18, 2012
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.
ShotmanMaslo
3.6 / 5 (10) Mar 18, 2012
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.
Vendicar_Decarian
3.4 / 5 (18) Mar 18, 2012
As American crop land continues to become desert, lots of land will be available.

Meanwhile temperatures for the last week of winter here are 21'F higher than normal. Equivalent to late spring.

What happened to winter?
There wasn't one in North America?
Unprecedented warming.
Callippo
1 / 5 (15) Mar 18, 2012
.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
MR166
1.8 / 5 (24) Mar 18, 2012
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.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.4 / 5 (34) Mar 18, 2012
""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.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.4 / 5 (31) Mar 18, 2012
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."
MR166
2.4 / 5 (20) Mar 18, 2012
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.
Vendicar_Decarian
3.2 / 5 (14) Mar 18, 2012
"According to their website it will produce 110 Million KWH of electricity / year." - Mr166

Currently I am using around 5 KwH per day to run my house.

This plant would service 60,000 people like me. 75,000 if passive solar were used for hot water heating.

MR166
1.5 / 5 (16) Mar 18, 2012
VD what exactly does you power usage have to do with their ability to pay off a $260 Million Dollar loan??????
kaasinees
3.7 / 5 (18) Mar 18, 2012
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.
RitchieGuy
1.3 / 5 (15) Mar 18, 2012
Venditardo says:
He has, Tard Boy.

You just aren't smart enough to realize it.

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

"I can't believe that Spain is way ahead of us since last May." - RyggTard

But you apparently do still believe that Spain is close to the Equator. At least that is what you are foolishly maintaining.

At this point almost everyone is ahead of America Richie Tard.

You can thank 40 years of Republican Treason for that.

"Starve the best of big government through fiscal bankruptcy" - Libertarian/Randite/TeaTard motto.



"But you apparently do still believe that Spain is close to the Equator. At least that is what you are foolishly maintaining."

Venditardo, as usual, you are wrong. . .I have been corrected by rubberman and he has enightened me as to the proximity of lower Spain to the equator.
So your whole concept is bogus, but if it makes you feel superior, then keep believing your lie.
Vendicar_Decarian
3.9 / 5 (21) Mar 18, 2012
I was commenting on the plants ability to service customers.

But I do note that $260 million represents $3,700 for every customer over the lifetime of the plant.

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. Probably half that when government feed in subsidies are in place.

It is interesting to consider that for the cost of Bushie's campaign of war crimes in Iraq and Iran, the U.S. could have built 16,000 plants of this type and service 1 billion 200 million people living at my level of consumptive efficiency.

Vendicar_Decarian
3.4 / 5 (15) Mar 18, 2012
"I have been corrected by rubberman and he has enightened me as to the proximity of lower Spain to the equator." - RichieTard

In fact, nether he nor I have seen you correct your false claim that Spain was close to the equator.

You may do so here, so that we do see it.

RitchieGuy
3.1 / 5 (13) Mar 18, 2012
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.


Callippo. . .we have enough arid desert land in the U.S. to support those panels and tower. 480 acres is not too much
MR166
1.5 / 5 (22) Mar 18, 2012
"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!!!!
Vendicar_Decarian
3.3 / 5 (12) Mar 18, 2012
"You really think they wont do their math before lending out 260million$?" - Mr166

This facility is a large scale pilot facility. It is intended to evaluate the technology, it's efficiency, reliability, cost, etc.

Like any prototype, it costs much more than the production units will cost.

Mr116 spends way too much time with his ears warmed by the interior of his rectum.

RitchieGuy
1.6 / 5 (18) Mar 18, 2012
Venditardo says:
"I have been corrected by rubberman and he has enightened me as to the proximity of lower Spain to the equator." - RichieTard

In fact, nether he nor I have seen you correct your false claim that Spain was close to the equator.

You may do so here, so that we do see it.


LOL. . .where have you been, Tardo? I fessed up to rubberman already and I noted that the equator runs through central Africa. And why does this bit of geographical error put you in such a tizzy? You seem almost orgasmic over it. . . .LMAO
MR166
2 / 5 (15) Mar 18, 2012
"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.
Vendicar_Decarian
3.3 / 5 (12) Mar 18, 2012
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.
Vendicar_Decarian
3.4 / 5 (10) Mar 18, 2012
"The wholesale rate in more like 5 cents per KWH." - Mr166

http://en.wikiped..._pricing

Educate yourself.
MR166
1.7 / 5 (11) Mar 18, 2012
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.
RitchieGuy
1.4 / 5 (11) Mar 18, 2012
Venditard is lying about his electric bill. AGWites lie all the time and it's a proven fact.
RitchieGuy
2.7 / 5 (9) Mar 18, 2012
The thing I like most about the Spanish solar project is the tower. All that energy from sunlight concentrated onto the tower is a terrific idea. It must be an amazing sight from a distance.
MR166
2 / 5 (9) Mar 18, 2012
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.
Bradfield
5 / 5 (2) Mar 18, 2012
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/

javjav
5 / 5 (7) Mar 18, 2012
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.
Vendicar_Decarian
3 / 5 (12) Mar 18, 2012
"The thing I like most about the Spanish solar project is the tower." - RichieTard

Probably reminds you of the tower of power you keep under your bed and ride when the kids are asleep.
RitchieGuy
1.6 / 5 (13) Mar 18, 2012
Venditower says:
"The thing I like most about the Spanish solar project is the tower." - RichieTard

Probably reminds you of the tower of power you keep under your bed and ride when the kids are asleep.


Oh. . .you have one of those? What do you do with it? Never had one.
VendiTard is so experienced in these things. . .hauck poo
hikenboot
5 / 5 (5) Mar 18, 2012
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!
hikenboot
5 / 5 (6) Mar 18, 2012
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.
RitchieGuy
1.4 / 5 (10) Mar 18, 2012
It would be too expensive to build it in the U.S. because the Unions will demand that union workers build it while paying union dues; and the union dues get paid to the union leaders in Washington to help sustain their fancy digs; then the union leaders give a big donation to the DNC; and the DNC use the funds to help Obama get reelected; and Obama provides taxpayer money to pay the union worker who pay the union dues, etc. etc.

Better to build it in Taiwan or South Korea. . .a lot less trouble and better workmanship.
RitchieGuy
1 / 5 (10) Mar 18, 2012
I'm not knocking the average American worker. . .but American unions are just so greedy for union dues and the eventual political clout it gives them. There's too much corruption involved with unions. They have outlived their usefulness.
JohnMoser
5 / 5 (4) Mar 18, 2012
""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?
MR166
2.1 / 5 (15) Mar 18, 2012
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.
Vendicar_Decarian
3.3 / 5 (8) Mar 18, 2012
"And your point is ?" - Mr166

The point MrTard is that this facility could charge up to 27 cents per KwH and still not cost the consumer any more for power than the average in Spain.

Further, this facility could store it's energy until peak requirements and then generate then to take advantage of higher prices on the spot market that greatly exceed the average price of 9 to 12 cents.
hikenboot
5 / 5 (3) Mar 18, 2012
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.
Vendicar_Decarian
3 / 5 (11) Mar 18, 2012
The yearly cost of borrowing to pay the interest on the Republican Created debt in the U.S. is close to a half trillion a year.

But that is what you get when you elect a Republican party who's goal is go bankrupt the nation through tax cuts and trillions in borrowing.

"In reality, it costs a lot to borrow money" - MrTard
kaasinees
2.8 / 5 (11) Mar 18, 2012
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.
hikenboot
4 / 5 (4) Mar 18, 2012
Tax like the cigarette companies should be taxed and its executives put in jail, for causing millions of deaths, and huge hospital bills...
Vendicar_Decarian
3.2 / 5 (9) Mar 18, 2012
Ya, they were bankrupted by the actions of the Chinese suppliers of PV cells who undercut them to maintain market dominance.

The Chinese know that they have America by the balls and will not tolerate any attempt by Uncle Sam to escape.

America should have continued to pump money into Solyndra to create a domestic supplier of a critical component of the worlds energy supply.

But Cut and Run Republicans prevented it to score cheap political points among their ignorant Conservative supporters.

"You do realize that Solyndra went bankrupt, don't you...dumbass?" - VeronicaMoser
MR166
2 / 5 (13) Mar 18, 2012
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.
Vendicar_Decarian
2.7 / 5 (7) Mar 18, 2012
First, you are confusing the terms deficit and debt.

Second the U.S. federal debt is 15.6 trillion not 13 trillion.

Yearly interest on America's Republican created Federal Debt is now roughly 0.6 trillion a year.

"Put another way if we invested (US Gov) 1 Trillion as a subsidy it would add only 1 trillion to a 13 trillion deficit" - Hiken

America will not exist as a nation within the next decade.
Vendicar_Decarian
2.9 / 5 (8) Mar 18, 2012
Correct. He hasn't.

"Right VD, your idol Obama has not spent in four years twice what Bush spent in 8 years." - Mr166

But what he has spent is massive and without it your nation would have been even more impoverished as it entered a decades long grand Bush Depression.

Fortunately for America. Obama is in power.
hikenboot
5 / 5 (2) Mar 18, 2012
I was talking a 1 Trillion addition to debt over a 10 to 20 year period of the project.
RitchieGuy
1.4 / 5 (9) Mar 18, 2012
Venditard says:
The yearly cost of borrowing to pay the interest on the Republican Created debt in the U.S. is close to a half trillion a year.

But that is what you get when you elect a Republican party who's goal is go bankrupt the nation through tax cuts and trillions in borrowing.

"In reality, it costs a lot to borrow money" - MrTard


Poor Venditard's memory fails him. . .even more than mine does :)

He's still under the false impression that Republicans are in the White House, in the Senate and in the Dept of Energy and Interior or the Justice Department.
Tardo. . .its the DEMOCRATS who are in power now, for the last 3 years even. . .the Republicans are only in your mind. . .take your meds, Tardo. .you memory is failing
Vendicar_Decarian
2.7 / 5 (7) Mar 18, 2012
"Oh. . .you have one of those?" - Richietard

Sorry RichieTard. Did you ride yours too hard?

Here is one with a nice bulb at the bottom. Don't ride this one too hard.

http://ideasmoder...amp;zc=1
Vendicar_Decarian
2.7 / 5 (7) Mar 18, 2012
Quite the contrary. It is enough that the Republican Traitors control the senate, and continuing to do as much damage to the nation as possible.

"He's still under the false impression that Republicans are in the White House, in the Senate and in the Dept of Energy and Interior or the Justice Department." - RitchieTard
RitchieGuy
1 / 5 (9) Mar 18, 2012
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


Borrowed money gets charged interest. . .depending on the % it can be either bearable or very costly. There are other factors also to borrowing..
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.

RitchieGuy
1.4 / 5 (10) Mar 18, 2012
Venditardo says: "America should have continued to pump money into Solyndra to create a domestic supplier of a critical component of the worlds energy supply.

But Cut and Run Republicans prevented it to score cheap political points among their ignorant Conservative supporters."

Republicans had nothing to do with Solyndra failing and shutting down. The Dept of Energy handled that end and Obama claimed that he didn't know what was going on. . .which is a big lie.
You give Republicans too much credit for being all powerful under the Obama administration. Repubs just don't have any of that Socialist power, so you really should get them off your mind.
hikenboot
5 / 5 (4) Mar 18, 2012
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.
RitchieGuy
1.8 / 5 (8) Mar 18, 2012
And by the way, DEMOCRATS rule the Senate, not Repubs
RitchieGuy
1.4 / 5 (9) Mar 18, 2012
Venditard says:
Quite the contrary. It is enough that the Republican Traitors control the senate, and continuing to do as much damage to the nation as possible.

"He's still under the false impression that Republicans are in the White House, in the Senate and in the Dept of Energy and Interior or the Justice Department." - RitchieTard


You need to apologize to any Republicans in this thread for your big error as to who has power in the Senate.
Vendicar_Decarian
3 / 5 (6) Mar 18, 2012
But everything to do with it's inability to get additional funding.

"Republicans had nothing to do with Solyndra failing and shutting down." - RichieTard

Poor Clueless RichieTard.
Vendicar_Decarian
3 / 5 (6) Mar 18, 2012
You are right. I was thinking house and wrote senate.

"You need to apologize to any Republicans in this thread for your big error as to who has power in the Senate." - RichieTard

I will restate.

Quite the contrary. It is enough that the Republican Traitors control congress, and continue to do as much damage to the nation as possible.

The primary goal of the congressional Republicans is to continue to keep the economy near recession so that they can blame Obama for the condition over the next 6 months.
RitchieGuy
1.4 / 5 (9) Mar 18, 2012
Venditardo says:
"Oh. . .you have one of those?" - Richietard

Sorry RichieTard. Did you ride yours too hard?

Here is one with a nice bulb at the bottom. Don't ride this one too hard.

http://ideasmoder...amp;zc=1


Nah. . .that's not for me. . .that's for a young single guy like yourself. I've got plenty of energy only for my woman
Vendicar_Decarian
3 / 5 (6) Mar 18, 2012
You obviously aren't old enough to remember the origin of American fiscal crisis - Ronald (Borrow and Spend) Reagan.

"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." - Hiken

If you were old enough you would remember how lying Republicans claimed that Reagan's borrow and spend policies and massive deficits were claimed by Republicans to have "repealed the business cycle".

What they really did was put America on a path to bankruptcy and to get American corporations hooked on the cocaine of government deficits - paid to them of course.

RitchieGuy
1.4 / 5 (9) Mar 18, 2012
You are right. I was thinking house and wrote senate.

"You need to apologize to any Republicans in this thread for your big error as to who has power in the Senate." - RichieTard

I will restate.

Quite the contrary. It is enough that the Republican Traitors control congress, and continue to do as much damage to the nation as possible.

The primary goal of the congressional Republicans is to continue to keep the economy near recession so that they can blame Obama for the condition over the next 6 months.


Still wrong. . .try again. . . . the Democrat traitors. . . .rule the Senate. . .continue
Vendicar_Decarian
3 / 5 (6) Mar 18, 2012
"Nah. . .that's not for me" - RichieTard

I couldn't find any images of inflatable ones for you. So that will have to suffice. No doubt you have catalogues that a back door man like yourself can search through.

RitchieGuy
1.4 / 5 (9) Mar 18, 2012
Venditardo. . . .I've told you and told you and it still hasn't sunk into your diminishing brain cells. . .
Repeat after me. . . .the Republicans are divided into 2 factions. one faction consists of Conservative Republicans and they want to lower the deficit and a smaller government.

The other faction is the LIBERAL REPUBLICANS who always favor the Liberal Democrats with their tax and spend and raise the deficit programs.
Now take a few minutes to let that sink in. . .we will wait.
Vendicar_Decarian
3.4 / 5 (5) Mar 18, 2012
"Borrowing a trillion dollars plus was the greatest thing we ever did." - Reagan Budget Advisor.

"the Democrat traitors" - RichieTard
RitchieGuy
1 / 5 (9) Mar 18, 2012
"Nah. . .that's not for me" - RichieTard

I couldn't find any images of inflatable ones for you. So that will have to suffice. No doubt you have catalogues that a back door man like yourself can search through.



Why Tardo. . . .are you volunteering to offer yourself up? Maybe Ghost can accommodate your desires. LOL He goes for that $hit.
Vendicar_Decarian
3.4 / 5 (5) Mar 18, 2012
Poor RyggTard. He confuses "power" with "destruction".

Republicans are arsonists. Like apes with matches, out of ignorance they light fires and destroy whatever they touch, wherever they go.

"You give Republicans too much credit for being all powerful under the Obama administration." - RyggTard
hikenboot
4 / 5 (4) Mar 18, 2012
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)
Estevan57
2.1 / 5 (33) Mar 18, 2012
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.
Vendicar_Decarian
2.6 / 5 (5) Mar 18, 2012
Sorry Richie, I'm not into your kind of Republican backdoor shenanigans.

"Why Tardo. . . .are you volunteering to offer yourself up?" - RichieTard

RitchieGuy
1 / 5 (10) Mar 18, 2012
Anyway. . . .there are also Conservative DEMOCRATS like Joe Lieberman and several others who tend to vote with Conservative Republicans while still being members of the Dem party. Joe is not a tax and spend kind of guy. . . .but Harry Reid is.
RitchieGuy
1.4 / 5 (7) Mar 18, 2012
Estevan says:
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.


I hear ya. . .I wil attempt to curb my politics if Venditardo does also
RitchieGuy
1 / 5 (6) Mar 18, 2012
Poor RyggTard. He confuses "power" with "destruction".

Republicans are arsonists. Like apes with matches, out of ignorance they light fires and destroy whatever they touch, wherever they go.

"You give Republicans too much credit for being all powerful under the Obama administration." - RyggTard


Venditard. . .you are off your meds again. . .I'M the one who said that. .not Rygg2.
hikenboot
5 / 5 (2) Mar 18, 2012
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.
RitchieGuy
1 / 5 (6) Mar 18, 2012
IMO. . .solar panels, etc. built under the watch of a cadre of union thugs may be defective in workmanship. I would prefer to buy a product that is manufactured under controlled supervision in a non-union shop in South Korea or Taiwan.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.3 / 5 (24) Mar 18, 2012
""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
1 / 5 (9) Mar 18, 2012
Such a non-union must also be carefully controlled as to work hours and days off; lunch and washup; a fair and decent salary; good working conditions; health plan; etc. Only under such conditions will the employees be comfortable and secure enough to do a superior job making solar products.
Also, fair and equal representation for any grievances against fellow employees or management.
hikenboot
5 / 5 (4) Mar 18, 2012
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.
RitchieGuy
1 / 5 (10) Mar 18, 2012
""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.


GhostofShitto still follows me around misquoting me and pretending to know what it's talking about. 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
RitchieGuy
1 / 5 (9) Mar 18, 2012
hiken says:
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.


Ordinarily I would agree. . .but there is a climate of coercion in the U.S. that is bad for private industry and taxpayer money is distributed to inferior corporations like Solyndra and Abound. There inferiority stems from the fact that they were chosen, rather than being the lowest bidder to make the panels and it smacks of political cronyism and corruption.
RitchieGuy
1.1 / 5 (10) Mar 18, 2012
I'm not in favor of sending manufacturing overseas ordinarily. But if you want quality products, you won't get it here for the most part because of the corrupt union leaders who get kickbacks from politicians, the DNC and others
hikenboot
5 / 5 (3) Mar 18, 2012
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.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.5 / 5 (21) Mar 18, 2012
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?
RitchieGuy
1 / 5 (11) Mar 18, 2012
And don't forget. . .the Dept of Energy under Steven Chu was warned that Solyndra was about to go under. . .and they still gave that money to a failing company. Obama had to know about, but he lies that he did not know. What happened to that money? I believe the CEOs got it and returned some of it to Obama and the DNC
Estevan57
2.2 / 5 (38) Mar 18, 2012
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.
RitchieGuy
1 / 5 (8) Mar 18, 2012
hiken says:
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.


I know that the desert tortoise is considered an endangered species in the Mojave due to the solar array there. The environmentalists were up in arms over that too
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.3 / 5 (21) Mar 18, 2012
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.
RitchieGuy
1 / 5 (9) Mar 18, 2012
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.
RitchieGuy
1 / 5 (11) Mar 18, 2012
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.


Estevan. . .all that money that was wasted going into failing solar companies, and the money that BP had to pay out for their negligence could have built loads of solar arrays in all the deserts in the U.S. and Australia. We have to be extremely careful now how our money is spent
Estevan57
2.2 / 5 (37) Mar 18, 2012
The desert tortoise was endangered BEFORE the projects not BECAUSE of them.

RitchieGuy
1 / 5 (12) Mar 18, 2012
Sure, there are many honest and competent manufacturing companies in the U.S. that have excellent workers, but once the union thugs get their hooks into them. . .it's like GE and the Chevy Volt
RitchieGuy
1 / 5 (8) Mar 18, 2012
The desert tortoise was endangered BEFORE the projects not BECAUSE of them.



From what I've read, the solar arrays haven't helped the tortoises and they are still endangered. Maybe they are just destined to go extinct. There are lots of endangered species in the U.S. Amongst them are birds that fly into windmills. Lots of windmills in California.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.3 / 5 (19) Mar 18, 2012
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?
RitchieGuy
1 / 5 (7) Mar 18, 2012
I don't really like buying solar from overseas either. . .would rather they be made here. But if they were made here, the cost to vuy them would be exorbitant for most people unless you're rich. Plus maintenance and new parts.
hikenboot
5 / 5 (2) Mar 18, 2012
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?
RitchieGuy
1 / 5 (8) Mar 18, 2012
LOL. . . .don't pay attention (unless you choose to) to that crazy Ghost person. I have had to rebuff its sexual advances on PM and it is still after me. . .maybe others also. It is a certified troll and is very angry. Pay no mind to it.
RitchieGuy
1 / 5 (8) Mar 18, 2012
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've never done the calculations and I'm too tired anyway. But the energy from Mojave will only be for those who live in the region where the electricity can reach. I live in the East, so it doesn't affect me.
RitchieGuy
1.1 / 5 (9) Mar 18, 2012
Unfortunately, I know of no desert-like areas in the Eastern part of the U.S. and it's mostly arable land anyway, so I doubt that an array could be built here, unless land is donated or bought for that purpose. Land in the East is actually at a premium for developments and farming and ranching. There's really no spare land here for such an array.
Estevan57
2.1 / 5 (37) Mar 18, 2012
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
1 / 5 (9) Mar 18, 2012
You want to know easily eliminated waste? Plastics. . .could easily be recycled, melted down and made into more products. . .but many communities don't have the facilities or the money to recycle plastics and it gets thrown into land fills. . .being a big waste of oil.
hikenboot
5 / 5 (3) Mar 18, 2012
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.
Estevan57
2.1 / 5 (37) Mar 18, 2012
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.
RitchieGuy
1 / 5 (10) Mar 18, 2012
I wonder about those panels in Spain. . .if they turn by a motor to face the sun or are they all stationary. Not that it matters that much because when the sun goes from East to West, the panels on each side will still get the rays. I have solar panels on my house and they can't be moved.
hikenboot
5 / 5 (3) Mar 18, 2012
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.
RitchieGuy
1 / 5 (8) Mar 18, 2012
CO2 in the atmosphere is presently a hot potato amongst the AGW people. However, I and others believe that the AGWites are going about it all wrong, because they're solutions or lack of solutions include coercion and extortion of rich countries to redistribute their wealth to poor countries who, in general, are ruled by despotic dictators and the money stays in the pockets of THEIR wealthy.
Estevan57
2.1 / 5 (37) Mar 18, 2012
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.
hikenboot
5 / 5 (1) Mar 18, 2012
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.
RitchieGuy
1 / 5 (10) Mar 18, 2012
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.


yes. . .all that is important. . .but a lot of people can't afford to insulate their homes and increase R ratings. . .not with this economy. . .and people have to drive to work unless they do everything on a computer. The high unemployment rate is a huge problem and providing for all of these jobless people is unsustainable. Some people are blaming it all on the corporations, or Capitalism, or Republicans vs. Democrats. I think it's way bigger than those.
RitchieGuy
1 / 5 (10) Mar 18, 2012
Computers, software, OS are all in planned obsolescence as evidenced with Microsoft putting out new OS every so often. If they ever make cpu that run on less electricity, that would be great. But I don't think it will happen
Estevan57
1.9 / 5 (34) Mar 18, 2012
"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.
tarheelchief
5 / 5 (1) Mar 18, 2012
If you construct the power to a long term usage contract with a utility replacing coal fired plants.These solar powered plants could become part of the grid and gradually eliminate carbon usage.Almost every western state has sites for these kinds of plants.
Or,you could set up desal plants in California,Florida, Baja California,Ecuador,Peru,Chile,Argentina,Uruguay,Brazil,The Middle East,and Africa,you can attract investors.
Your charges for electricity would be one cost,the price of water created would be another cost for the consumer.
In any case,the investment would be repaid by all the benefits to the local populations.Better water,lights,and increased productive capacity for industry and services.
hikenboot
3 / 5 (2) Mar 18, 2012
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.
RitchieGuy
1 / 5 (11) Mar 18, 2012
Estevan. . . .Bloomberg has lost lots of rich people from NY and even the poor are moving South because they can't afford the rents. So he is getting desperate for revenue. The point is though, that any PV that's built on top of land fills will gradually sink into the fill as the stuff decays and moves around. It would make sense if they placed something under the array, or something to elevate it to keep it from sinking because it will be expensive to do it later.
Estevan57
2.1 / 5 (37) Mar 18, 2012
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!
hikenboot
3 / 5 (2) Mar 18, 2012
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.
RitchieGuy
1 / 5 (7) Mar 18, 2012
If you construct the power to a long term usage contract with a utility replacing coal fired plants.These solar powered plants could become part of the grid and gradually eliminate carbon usage.Almost every western state has sites for these kinds of plants.
Or,you could set up desal plants in California,Florida, Baja California,Ecuador,Peru,Chile,Argentina,Uruguay,Brazil,The Middle East,and Africa,you can attract investors.
Your charges for electricity would be one cost,the price of water created would be another cost for the consumer.
In any case,the investment would be repaid by all the benefits to the local populations.Better water,lights,and increased productive capacity for industry and services.


Not diesel. . .biofuels like ethanol, maybe methanol will replace fossil fuels for cars, trucks, buses, and maybe trains. Solar on the grid depends on how much energy can be stored in those salt whatever for power after sundown. But solar. . .gosh I don't know the ohms, amperages
Estevan57
2.1 / 5 (37) Mar 18, 2012
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.
hikenboot
3 / 5 (2) Mar 18, 2012
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
1 / 5 (8) Mar 18, 2012
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!


LOL. . .I'm actually a farmer/rancher, so I don't really have all that much time to investigate. If I were an I.T., and programmer, etc., then I would have the time.
RitchieGuy
1 / 5 (8) Mar 19, 2012
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.


hiken. . .if Obama gets reelected, he will most likely get laws passed that will bring on full blown Socialism in the U.S. and when and if that happens, you will be answering to some bureaucrat who doesn't give a fig about your electrical needs. Everyone will have a job and get paid according to their job description and how productive they are. There will be other crap that we would all have to put up with.
hikenboot
5 / 5 (5) Mar 19, 2012
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
1 / 5 (7) Mar 19, 2012
it sure was nice talking to you guys. . .it's been fun and informative. . .thanks for all the fish.
hikenboot
5 / 5 (1) Mar 19, 2012
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.
kochevnik
1.8 / 5 (5) Mar 19, 2012
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.
Estevan57
1.9 / 5 (35) Mar 19, 2012
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.
Gigel
5 / 5 (2) Mar 19, 2012
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.
Kenb1
4.4 / 5 (7) Mar 19, 2012
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.
Kenb1
5 / 5 (5) Mar 19, 2012
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.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (4) Mar 19, 2012
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.
hikenboot
5 / 5 (2) Mar 19, 2012
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.
hikenboot
5 / 5 (1) Mar 19, 2012
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.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (4) Mar 19, 2012
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?
hikenboot
1 / 5 (1) Mar 19, 2012
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.
Kinedryl
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 19, 2012
Power efficiency doubling every 18 months or so.
You cannot violate the laws of thermodynamics, for example the theoretical efficiency of Carnot's cycle.
hikenboot
5 / 5 (1) Mar 19, 2012
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.
hikenboot
5 / 5 (1) Mar 19, 2012
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.
Sean_W
1.6 / 5 (7) Mar 19, 2012
"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.
antialias_physorg
4 / 5 (4) Mar 19, 2012
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.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (4) Mar 19, 2012
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.
Estevan57
Mar 19, 2012
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
CapitalismPrevails
2.2 / 5 (13) Mar 19, 2012
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
CapitalismPrevails
2.5 / 5 (8) Mar 19, 2012
for being sued by infringing on other's civil and private property rights.
antialias_physorg
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 19, 2012
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)
rubberman
2.6 / 5 (8) Mar 19, 2012
"half the pollution problems from coal would be solved if the EPA would stop obstructing and let the industry develop coal gasification technology".

Rarely do i agree with CP, but in this instance he is correct. In Canada we have already designed a process to cut coal emissions by half using liquified coal that has undergone a purification process to eliminate various toxic components and particulates.

http://www.thecan...fication

If the world has to ween instead of going cold turkey...it's a start
Estevan57
2.1 / 5 (38) Mar 19, 2012
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?
CapitalismPrevails
2 / 5 (12) Mar 19, 2012
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
Estevan57
2.1 / 5 (37) Mar 19, 2012
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.
CapitalismPrevails
2.3 / 5 (9) Mar 19, 2012
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/
antialias_physorg
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 19, 2012
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)
CapitalismPrevails
2.2 / 5 (10) Mar 19, 2012
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?
Estevan57
2.1 / 5 (39) Mar 19, 2012
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.
Estevan57
2.2 / 5 (39) Mar 19, 2012
"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.
antialias_physorg
4.3 / 5 (6) Mar 20, 2012
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.
Callippo
2 / 5 (4) Mar 20, 2012
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.
MarkyMark
2.6 / 5 (5) Mar 24, 2012
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.
hikenboot
4 / 5 (4) Mar 24, 2012
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.
hikenboot
5 / 5 (1) Mar 24, 2012
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?
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (1) Mar 24, 2012
Spain uses about half per capita
http://en.wikiped...r_capita
(though the numbers are from 2003)
hikenboot
5 / 5 (1) Mar 24, 2012
"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.
hikenboot
5 / 5 (1) Mar 24, 2012
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.
hikenboot
5 / 5 (1) Mar 24, 2012
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.
hikenboot
5 / 5 (2) Mar 24, 2012
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.
NotParker
2.6 / 5 (10) Mar 24, 2012
Are these the guys who were caught generating power with diesel generators at night when subsidies were so high?
hikenboot
5 / 5 (2) Mar 25, 2012
NotParker: what guys are you referring to? Or is this just another red herring?
NotParker
3 / 5 (8) Mar 25, 2012
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
Pooua
2 / 5 (1) Mar 26, 2012
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.
Vendicar_Decarian
3.4 / 5 (5) Mar 26, 2012
ParkerTard doesn't need no facts when he has unnamed sources from a Whack Job Conservative Blog.

"After press reports, it was established during inspections that several solar power plants were generating current and feeding it into the net at night." = ParkerTard
hikenboot
5 / 5 (3) Mar 26, 2012
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!
NotParker
3 / 5 (8) Mar 26, 2012
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."
hikenboot
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 26, 2012
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.
hikenboot
1 / 5 (1) Mar 26, 2012
http://wn.com/sec...y=rating <<--case for thorium nuclear reactor
NotParker
2.8 / 5 (9) Mar 27, 2012
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."
hikenboot
not rated yet Mar 28, 2012
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.
NotParker
2.5 / 5 (13) Mar 28, 2012
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/
hikenboot
5 / 5 (2) Mar 28, 2012
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?
hikenboot
3 / 5 (2) Mar 28, 2012
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...
hikenboot
1 / 5 (1) Mar 28, 2012
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.
MarkyMark
2.1 / 5 (7) Mar 29, 2012
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.
NotParker
3 / 5 (8) Mar 29, 2012
"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.
hikenboot
5 / 5 (1) Mar 29, 2012
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.
hikenboot
5 / 5 (1) Mar 29, 2012
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.
Vendicar_Decarian
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 29, 2012
Parker Tard has no interest in honesty. He is regularly caught lying.

"where on earth are you getting $33 dollars for every watt?" - hikenboot
hikenboot
5 / 5 (2) Mar 29, 2012
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.
hikenboot
3 / 5 (2) Mar 29, 2012
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.
NotParker
2.8 / 5 (9) Mar 29, 2012
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.
Estevan57
2 / 5 (36) Mar 30, 2012
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!

hikenboot
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 30, 2012
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?
NotParker
3.3 / 5 (7) Mar 30, 2012
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?
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (4) Mar 30, 2012
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.
hikenboot
5 / 5 (3) Mar 30, 2012
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.
NotParker
3 / 5 (6) Mar 31, 2012
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.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (2) Mar 31, 2012
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
Vendicar_Decarian
3 / 5 (2) Mar 31, 2012
One of the primary concern is that the methane will continue uncontrollably to leak from the fractured rock and enter the aquifer and atmosphere where it will cause all manner of trouble.

http://www.window..._big.gif

"Shale gas produces 50% of the CO2 than coal for the same amount of heat." - ParkerTard
NotParker
3.3 / 5 (7) Mar 31, 2012
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
hikenboot
5 / 5 (1) Mar 31, 2012
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!!!)
hikenboot
1 / 5 (1) Mar 31, 2012
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.
antialias_physorg
not rated yet Mar 31, 2012
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
Callippo
1 / 5 (2) Mar 31, 2012
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.
hikenboot
1 / 5 (1) Mar 31, 2012
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.
NotParker
2.5 / 5 (8) Mar 31, 2012
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.
hikenboot
5 / 5 (1) Mar 31, 2012
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!
hikenboot
5 / 5 (1) Mar 31, 2012
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).
hikenboot
5 / 5 (1) Mar 31, 2012
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.
NotParker
2.8 / 5 (9) Mar 31, 2012
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.
NotParker
2.6 / 5 (10) Mar 31, 2012
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.
hikenboot
5 / 5 (1) Apr 01, 2012
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
3 / 5 (8) Apr 01, 2012
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.
Vendicar_Decarian
2.3 / 5 (3) Apr 01, 2012
Parker Tard claims to hear many things that are never said. Things not said by anyone but himself.

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

He is a well known, congenital liar.
hikenboot
not rated yet Apr 01, 2012
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
NotParker
3 / 5 (8) Apr 01, 2012
"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."
Vendicar_Decarian
2.3 / 5 (3) Apr 01, 2012
I say build a few and see how well they work.

Worst case, the pain would be manageable and there would be some small benefit and some time purchased.

Building the 200,000 reactors needed for a nuclear economy though is not a practical possibility.

"Thorium reactors would buy us 25-50 years while burning our enriched uranium since it only takes a small amount of fissile material." - Heikenboot
hikenboot
1 / 5 (1) Apr 01, 2012
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.
Vendicar_Decarian
2 / 5 (4) Apr 01, 2012
Parker Tard starts with the lie...

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

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

So ParkerTard has dishonestly inflated 602 deaths into a claim of Millions of deaths.

Yes. ParkerTard, like every Conservative I have ever encountered is a perpetual and congenital liar.
Vendicar_Decarian
2.3 / 5 (3) Apr 01, 2012
To my knowledge there has never been a substantive leak of radiation into the environment from any Canadian power reactor.

"And the nuclear reactors in Canada are poisoning the water too." - ParkerTard

Canada uses a CANDU design which is encapsulates each fuel bundle in it's own containment tube. Passive cooling for several days is available in case of an emergency power failure, and reaction poisoning is integrated into the system.

CANDU designs show some instability at low power, so if operated by fools they could be made to undergo a steam explosion.

Canada would therfore be well advise to prevent people like ParkerTard from getting close to their reactor facilities.
hikenboot
1 / 5 (1) Apr 02, 2012
Vendi I have been trying to figure out where you got 200,000 reactors from. can you please explain?
hikenboot
1 / 5 (1) Apr 02, 2012
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!!!
hikenboot
not rated yet Apr 02, 2012
3,741,000,000 MW-H/Yr * 114.077116 Watts total=
430,503,490,956 watts/yr
NotParker
3 / 5 (8) Apr 02, 2012
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

NotParker
3 / 5 (8) Apr 02, 2012
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/
NotParker
3 / 5 (8) Apr 02, 2012
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.
hikenboot
3 / 5 (2) Apr 02, 2012
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.
hikenboot
not rated yet Apr 02, 2012
NotParker
3.3 / 5 (7) Apr 02, 2012
Another solar plant goes bankrupt.

http://wattsupwit...re-60583
NotParker
3 / 5 (8) Apr 02, 2012
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.
hikenboot
3 / 5 (2) Apr 03, 2012
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
2.5 / 5 (11) Apr 03, 2012
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.
Estevan57
2 / 5 (32) Apr 03, 2012
"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.
NotParker
2.6 / 5 (10) Apr 03, 2012
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/
Estevan57
1.9 / 5 (35) Apr 04, 2012
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.

NotParker
2.6 / 5 (10) Apr 04, 2012
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.
Estevan57
1.9 / 5 (34) Apr 04, 2012
"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?
NotParker
3.3 / 5 (7) Apr 04, 2012
"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
hikenboot
5 / 5 (1) Apr 04, 2012
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
2.6 / 5 (10) Apr 04, 2012
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.

Estevan57
1.9 / 5 (35) Apr 04, 2012
Please explain why, that in this global economy, solar power alone is bankrupting the countries named.
NotParker
2.7 / 5 (12) Apr 04, 2012
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/
Estevan57
1.9 / 5 (34) Apr 04, 2012
Christian Broadcasting Network? Nice source.
ShotmanMaslo
2.1 / 5 (7) Apr 05, 2012
Estevan - here is the actual study the CBN reports about:
http://www.juande...able.pdf

Better?
Estevan57
1.9 / 5 (34) Apr 05, 2012
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. :)
NotParker
3 / 5 (8) Apr 05, 2012
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.
Estevan57
1.9 / 5 (34) Apr 06, 2012
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!
hikenboot
2.3 / 5 (3) Apr 06, 2012
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.
NotParker
3.3 / 5 (7) Apr 06, 2012
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
hikenboot
5 / 5 (3) Apr 08, 2012
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.
Vendicar_Decarian
3 / 5 (4) Apr 08, 2012
ParkerTard seems to spend an inordinate amount of time - at all times of the day - posting his nonsense drivel here.

He is either unemployed, or employed to post here.

"I wonder if you will ever stop talking, I doubt it, your probably being compensated for the constant dribble." - Hikenboot