Preparing for large-scale solar deployment

January 1, 2016 by Nancy W. Stauffer
Preparing for large-scale solar deployment
Figure 1: Impact of solar generation on distribution network costs in the U.S. (blue) and Europe (red). Costs are measured relative to the cost of a corresponding no-PV scenario. Solid lines indicate 80 percent residential, 15 percent commercial, 5 percent industrial demand. Dashed lines indicate 15 percent residential, 80 percent commercial, and 5 percent industrial demand. In all cases, costs increase as PV energy share increases.

Deploying solar power at the scale needed to alleviate climate change will pose serious challenges for today's electric power system, finds a study performed by researchers at MIT and the Institute for Research and Technology (ITT) at Comillas University in Spain. For example, local power networks will need to handle both incoming and outgoing flows of electricity. Rapid changes in photovoltaic (PV) output as the sun comes and goes will require running expensive power plants that can respond quickly to changes in demand. Costs will rise, yet market prices paid to owners of PV systems will decline as more PV systems come online, rendering more PV investment unprofitable at market prices. The study concludes that ensuring an economic, reliable, and climate-friendly power system in the future will require strengthening existing equipment, modifying regulations and pricing, and developing critical technologies, including low-cost, large-scale energy storage devices that can smooth out delivery of PV-generated electricity.

Most experts agree that solar must be a critical component of any long-term plan to address climate change. By 2050, a major fraction of the world's power should come from solar sources. However, analyses performed as part of the MIT "Future of Solar Energy" report found that getting there won't be straightforward. "One of the big messages of the solar study is that the power system has to get ready for very high levels of solar PV generation," says Ignacio Pérez-Arriaga, a visiting professor at the MIT Sloan School of Management from IIT-Comillas.

Without the ability to store energy, all solar (and wind) power devices are intermittent sources of . When the sun is shining, electricity produced by PVs flows into the power system, and other power plants can be turned down or off because their generation isn't needed. When the sunshine goes away, those other plants must come back online to meet demand. That scenario poses two problems. First, PVs send electricity into a system that was designed to deliver it, not receive it. And second, their behavior requires other power plants to operate in ways that may be difficult or even impossible.

Figure 2: How PV generation affects demand that must be met by other generating units on a summer day on a Texas-like power system. Yellow areas are demand met by PV generation; brown areas are “net demand” that must be met by other power plants. When PV penetration is low, net demand decreases midday. But as PV share grows, net demand is far lower midday and must ramp up quickly when the sun sets — a rapid change that requires expensive gas-fired plants.

The result is that solar PVs can have profound, sometimes unexpected impacts on operations, future investments, costs, and prices on both distribution systems—the local networks that deliver electricity to consumers—and bulk power systems, the large interconnected systems made up of generation and transmission facilities. And those impacts grow as the solar presence increases.

Supporting local distribution

To examine impacts on distribution networks, the researchers used the Reference Network Model (RNM), which was developed at IIT-Comillas and simulates the design and operation of distribution networks that transfer electricity from high-voltage transmission systems to all final consumers. Using the RNM, the researchers built—via simulation—several prototype networks and then ran multiple simulations based on different assumptions, including varying amounts of PV generation.

In some situations, the addition of dispersed PV systems reduces the distance electricity must travel along power lines, so less is lost in transit and costs go down. But as the PV energy share grows, that benefit is eclipsed by the need to invest in reinforcing or modifying the existing network to handle two-way power flows. Changes could include installing larger transformers, thicker wires, and new voltage regulators or even reconfiguring the network, but the net result is added cost to protect both equipment and quality of service.

Figure 1 below presents sample results showing the impact of solar generation on network costs in the United States and in Europe. The outcomes differ, reflecting differences in the countries' voltages, network configurations, and so on. But in both cases, costs increase as the PV energy share increases from 0 to 30 percent, and the impact is greater when demand is dominated by residential rather than commercial or industrial customers.

The impact is also greater in less sunny regions. Indeed, in areas with low insolation, distribution costs may nearly double when the PV contribution exceeds one-third of annual load. The reason: When insolation is low, many more solar generating devices must be installed to meet a given level of demand, and the network needs to be ready to handle all the electricity flowing from those devices on the occasional sunny day.

One way to reduce the burden on distribution networks is to add local energy storage capability. Depending on the scenario and the storage capacity, at 30 percent PV penetration, storage can reduce added costs by one-third in Europe and cut them in half in the United States. "That doesn't mean that deployment of storage is economically viable now," says Pérez-Arriaga. "Current storage technology is expensive, but one of the services with economic value that it can provide is to bring down the cost of deploying solar PV."

Another concern stems from methods used to calculate consumer bills—methods that some distribution companies and customers deem unfair. Most U.S. states employ a practice called net metering. Each PV owner is equipped with an electric meter that turns one way when the household is pulling electricity in from the network and the other when it's sending excess electricity out. Reading the meter each month therefore gives net consumption or (possibly) net production, and the owner is billed or paid accordingly.

Preparing for large-scale solar deployment
Figure 3: Results from simulating the operation of a Texas-like power system while changing three factors: penetration of PV as a fraction of peak demand, income per installed watt seen by owners of PV systems, and energy storage capacity on the system. In the absence of storage, as PV penetration increases, PV system owners’ income decreases. But at each level of solar PV penetration, adding storage increases that income, and in general, the more storage added, the greater the upward shift.

Most electricity bills consist of a small fixed component and a variable component that is proportional to the energy consumed during the time period considered. Net metering can have the effect of reducing, canceling, or even turning the variable component into a negative value. As a result, users with PV panels avoid paying most of the network costs—even though they are using the network and (as explained above) may actually be pushing up network costs. "The cost of the network has to be recovered, so people who don't own solar PV panels on their rooftops have to pay what the PV owners don't pay," explains Pérez-Arriaga. In effect, the PV owners are receiving a subsidy that's paid by the non-PV owners.

Unless the design of network charges is modified, the current controversy over electricity bills will intensify as residential solar penetration increases. Therefore, Pérez-Arriaga and his colleagues are developing proposals for "completely overhauling the way in which the network tariffs are designed so that network costs are allocated to the entities that cause them," he says.

Impacts on bulk power systems

In other work, the researchers focused on the impact of PV penetration on larger-scale electric systems. Using the Low Emissions Electricity Market Analysis model—another tool developed at IIT-Comillas—they examined how operations on bulk power systems, the future generation mix, and prices on wholesale electricity markets might evolve as the PV energy share grows.

Unlike deploying a conventional power plant, installing a solar PV system requires no time-consuming approval and construction processes. "If the regulator gives some attractive incentive to solar, you can just remove the potatoes in your potato field and put in solar panels," Pérez-Arriaga says. As a result, significant solar generation can appear on a bulk power system within a few months. With no time to adjust, system operators must carry on using existing equipment and methods of deploying it to meet the needs of customers.

A typical bulk power system includes a variety of power plants with differing costs and characteristics. Conventional coal and nuclear plants are inexpensive to run (though expensive to build), but they don't switch on and off easily or turn up and down quickly. Plants fired by natural gas are more expensive to run (and less expensive to build), but they're also more flexible. In general, demand is met by dispatching the least expensive plants first and then turning to more expensive and flexible plants as needed.

For one series of simulations, the researchers focused on a power system similar to the one that services much of Texas. Results presented in Figure 2 in the slideshow above show how PV generation affects demand on that system over the course of a summer day. In each diagram, yellow areas are demand met by PV generation, and brown areas are "net demand," that is, remaining demand that must be met by other power plants. Left to right, the diagrams show increasing PV penetration. Initially, PV generation simply reduces net demand during the middle of the day. But when the PV energy share reaches 58 percent, the solar generation pushes down net demand dramatically, such that when the sun goes down, other generators must go from low to high production in a short period of time. Since low-cost coal and nuclear plants can't ramp up quickly, more expensive gas-fired plants must cut in to do the job.

That change has a major impact on prices on the wholesale electricity market. Each owner who sends a unit of electricity into the bulk power system at a given time gets paid the same amount: the cost of producing a unit of electricity at the last plant that was turned on, thus the most expensive one. So when PVs come online, expensive gas-fired plants shut off, and the price paid to everyone drops. Then when the sun goes away and PV production abruptly disappears, gas-fired plants are turned back on and the price goes way up.

As a result, when PV systems are operating and PV penetrations are high, prices are low, and when they shut down, prices are high. Owners of PV systems thus receive the low prices and never the high. Moreover, their reimbursement declines as more solar power comes online, as shown by the downward sloping blue curve in Figure 1 in the slideshow above.

Under current conditions, as more PV systems come online, reimbursements to solar owners will shrink to the point that investing in solar is no longer profitable at market prices. "So people may think that if solar power becomes very inexpensive, then everything will become solar," Pérez-Arriaga says. "But we find that that won't happen. There's a natural limit to solar penetration after which investment in more solar will not be economically viable."

However, if goals and incentives are set for certain levels of solar penetration decades ahead, then PV investment will continue, and the bulk power system will have time to adjust. In the absence of energy storage, the accompanying solar will for the most part be gas-fired units that can follow rapid changes in demand. Conventional coal and nuclear plants will play a diminishing role—unless new, more flexible versions of those technologies are designed and deployed (along with carbon capture and storage for the coal plants). If high subsidies are paid to PV generators or if PV cost diminishes substantially, conventional coal and nuclear plants will be pushed out even more, and more flexible gas plants will be needed to cover the gap, leading to a different generation mix that is well-adapted for coexisting with solar.

A powerful means of alleviating cost and operating issues associated with PVs on bulk power systems—as on distribution networks—is to add energy storage. Technologies that provide many hours of storage—such as grid-scale batteries and hydroelectric plants with large reservoirs—will increase the value of PV. "Storage helps solar PVs have more value because it is able to bring solar-generated electricity to times when sunshine is not there, so to times when prices are high," Pérez-Arriaga says.

As Figure 3 in the slideshow above demonstrates, adding storage makes investments in PV generation more profitable at any level of solar penetration, and in general the greater the storage capacity, the greater the upward pressure on revenues paid to owners.

Energy storage thus can play a critical role in ensuring financial rewards to prospective buyers of PV systems so that the share of generation provided by PVs can continue to grow—without serious penalties in terms of operations and economics. Again, the research results demonstrate that developing low-cost energy storage technology is a key enabler for the successful deployment of solar PV power at a scale needed to address climate change in the coming decades.

Explore further: Toward a more resilient and flexible power grid

More information: The Remuneration Challenge: New Solutions for the Regulation of Electricity Distribution Utilities Under High Penetrations of Distributed Energy Resources and Smart Grid Technologies: mitei.mit.edu/system/files/20141015-The-Remuneration-Challenge-MIT-CEEPR-No-2014-005.pdf

A Framework for Redesigning Distribution Network Use of System Charges Under High Penetration of Distributed Energy Resources: New Principles for New Problems. mitei.mit.edu/system/files/20141028_UOF_DNUoS-FrameworkPaper.pdf

Related Stories

Toward a more resilient and flexible power grid

December 15, 2015

"The biggest and most complex machine ever built by humankind." That is how University of Wisconsin–Madison doctoral student of electrical engineering Philip Hart describes the nation's power grid.

Recommended for you

Wireless power could enable ingestible electronics

April 27, 2017

Researchers at MIT, Brigham and Women's Hospital, and the Charles Stark Draper Laboratory have devised a way to wirelessly power small electronic devices that can linger in the digestive tract indefinitely after being swallowed. ...

New design tool to enable global roaming smart phones

April 26, 2017

Wireless communications is a technology that is used every day. Across society, there is a move away from using the internet on desktop computers and towards smartphones, tablets and laptops. Engineers at the University of ...

117 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Steve 200mph Cruiz
5 / 5 (6) Jan 01, 2016
Maybe quantum computers will help us develop better and cheaper batteries.
Storage is the real problem, maybe the electrical grid of the future needs to not only be smart, it will have to behave like a giant battery itself in order to mediate the flows between different energy sources at demand times.
I mean we can't run traditional power sources in the way those graphs outline.
victor_gallagher
3.7 / 5 (6) Jan 01, 2016
Nuclear power plants run flat out. It does not make sense to throttle one of them down, there is simply nothing to be gained by doing so.
betterexists
4.2 / 5 (5) Jan 01, 2016
1) Future Energy requirements will be extremely high; So, all of the day's feed will be used up by dusk.
2) If it is still going to be highly excessive...The Solution is to create Giant Reservoirs near ocean shores at great heights. Pump Sea water into them and when night starts, make the water flow back over turbines creating hydro-electricity!
betterexists
3.1 / 5 (8) Jan 01, 2016
Just Make a World Grid. 12 hrs of day here while it is 12 hours night there. They use our Energy and When Sun Sets here, We use up their Energy!
We have Airlines for flying over the globe but no collaboration for Electricity yet?
RealScience
5 / 5 (7) Jan 01, 2016
The Solution is to create Giant Reservoirs near ocean shores at great heights. Pump Sea water into them and when night starts, make the water flow back over turbines creating hydro-electricity!

Yes, pumped-hydro storage is currently the dominant means of storing excess electricity, an it is relatively inexpensive and fairly efficient, and has been proven in decades of use.
(However many places do not have sites for this, so it is far from a universal solution.)

Just Make a World Grid... We have Airlines for flying over the globe but no collaboration for Electricity yet?

The distances are so long the current power lines would be prohibitively expensive and would lose most of the energy, but room-temperature super-conductors might very well make this feasible in the future.

Pooua
2.9 / 5 (7) Jan 01, 2016
Equipping individual residences with PV panels doesn't make a lot of sense, if the goal is to decrease the demand on centralized power plants. Most people's residential energy demands drop during the day, as they go to work. It might make more sense to centralize the PV panels and segregate the grid so that all the PV power is being delivered only to residential customers during the day. That would be a one-way flow across the grid. Perhaps home-owners could purchase shares in this centralized PV facility. At night, the grid cuts over to conventional plants.

It is my understanding that residential energy use accounts for about half the electricity demand in the US. Most of the other half is industrial, which requires essentially baseline power, 24/7. That wouldn't be so easily covered by solar power.

"The Solution is to create Giant Reservoirs near ocean shores at great heights."

Few places near oceans also have great heights. Chile is about the only place in the world.
EyeNStein
3.2 / 5 (6) Jan 01, 2016
When did their gas power stations get expensive?? In the UK they are most responsive and also cheapest to run.
This study appears to have neglected the cost of building new and extra power stations and upgrading the grid capacity as demand continues to grow. Both of which can be offset by PV.
It also conveniently forgets the standing charge which net PV generators still pay for network infrastructure usage.
One has to wonder who sponsored this biased research? You expect better from MIT.
greenonions
4.1 / 5 (9) Jan 01, 2016
I wonder if these two MIT groups actually talked to each other - http://mitei.mit....eofsolar

It seems that the authors of this report are not too aware of the falling costs of both solar and storage. http://cleantechn...y-model/ (30 cents a watt thin film) - http://www.renewa...nts.html It seems that solar + wind + storage could well handle our power needs - at very competitive rates.
Lord_jag
3.4 / 5 (15) Jan 01, 2016
One aspect ignored completely is the effect of peak zone power metering.

Right now we pay nearly double during the day when the sun is up because demand is the highest.

Now look at the last two graphs. Once PV starts to move "peak power" from mid-day to evening, the "Peak power charge" will shift and the social engineering to use power during the day when supply greatly exceeds demand will start kicking in.

Before you know if we will start trying to do tasks like laundry and car charging during the day instead of over night.
Lord_jag
3.5 / 5 (16) Jan 01, 2016
In effect, the PV owners are receiving a subsidy that's paid by the non-PV owners.

No!

PV owners are receiving a subsidy that normally goes to ANY new energy producer. Do you think any nuclear operation company pays for their reactor? Does any coal power producer pay for their coal plant? NO!

Those costs are paid by the taxpayer and provided free of charge to a company who uses this free facility to make power that they sell for profit.

Instead of subsidizing polluters, a much smaller amount is subsidizing green energy producers to make more power per dollar.
Lord_jag
3.7 / 5 (15) Jan 01, 2016
And seriously. 58%, assuming we all do NOTHING differently does create an issue. Full agreement. The 36% number, however looks great.

The mid-day peak has been turned into about the same as the mid night minimum. The highest remaining peak is 70% of what we have to deal with now, that makes for GREAT baseload, like what we get from nuclear.

So lets get to 36% ASAP. Until we reach that number every single panel makes the world a better place.
howhot2
5 / 5 (8) Jan 02, 2016
You know. This is a very good issue to have. I don't think the issue is with solar photovoltaic (PV) being able to supply the grid power but a case where the PV fluctuates so much that it's impossible to manage the grid in a methodical and predictable way day to day. I see this is just an issue of technology and not something fundamental. As noted by the first commentator @200mph, battery tech could easily smooth the grid. There have already been phys.org posts on solar panels that contain battery tech built in. Using current PV tech, I agree with what the article says. Using built in battery tech or localized battery tech could solve the problem.
jimbo92107
1.8 / 5 (6) Jan 02, 2016
What a waste of time and energy. Let's quit crapping around and just build a bunch of liquid salt thorium reactors.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (9) Jan 02, 2016
A clue -
It's gonna take ALL of the current power sources to run a planet...
What's gonna make a difference is the (available) ratios....
EnricM
4.2 / 5 (5) Jan 02, 2016
What a waste of time and energy. Let's quit crapping around and just build a bunch of liquid salt thorium reactors.


Of course, and we could supplement these with a few Fusion reactors too!!!
The excess energy could be used to create a time-space portal to Gliese 832G!

greenonions
4.2 / 5 (10) Jan 02, 2016
jimbo - 3 questions. 1. If we decided to build a bunch of thorium reactors today - how long would it be before they started producing power? (call that x years) 2. What would the cost of that power be per Kwh? 3. What will the cost of wind/solar/storage be x years from now?
Eikka
3.3 / 5 (9) Jan 02, 2016
When did their gas power stations get expensive??


There are different kinds of gas power stations.

The cheap kind are combination of a gas turbine, a steam turbine on the exhaust of the gas turbine, with heat recovery for warming up nearby homes. These are large plants that are run nearly constantly at their maximum output, so the high load factor and high efficiency makes the unit energy cost low.

And then there are the load following gas powerplants that run any number of simple and small to medium size once-through gas turbines to be able to throttle quickly. They're relatively low efficiency and which in combination with the low load factor makes the unit energy cost high.

Then there's also very large, very expensive stationary diesel engines that run on natural gas, such as the Wartsila/Cummins generators that come up to 100 MW engines the size of houses, which are used to respond to the fast transient power demands on the grid.
Eikka
3.4 / 5 (10) Jan 02, 2016
If we decided to build a bunch of thorium reactors today - how long would it be before they started producing power?


That's a disingenuous question, because the answer depends entirely on what you mean by "decide" - i.e. how much political red tape we still have to rip through before we can even start to hope to consider to plan to start pouring the concrete.

If by "decide" you mean we've actually got the will and consensus and licence to build them - a new Manhattan project for nuclear power - 5 years maybe? The actual Manhattan project for example was all done between 1939–1946 which saw the construction of dozens of reactors, essentially turning the continental USA into a plutonium factory, and they started from zero.

If there's will and adequate funding things can be done quite rapidly.

What would the cost of that power be per Kwh?


Most likely far less than the subsidies we have to keep paying solar PV owners to keep the investments going.
greenonions
4 / 5 (8) Jan 02, 2016
Eikka
That's a disingenuous question
It is not a disingenuous question - it is a real world question. Do some research on Hinkley point and her sister plants in Europe. I am talking real world. Funny how anti renewable haters like you are so willing to criticize the subsidies given to renewables - but then go all hyper theoretical when we start talking nuclear. What about the massive subsidies we are talking about with Hinkley? Oh you will say - that is not a good example - because of the politics. Yes - politics are a reality we have to deal with. You want to live in your fairy land - where you can not have to deal with reality. Stop calling us names - for understanding reality. Here is a real world - free enterprise company - going to produce solar panels at 30 cents a watt - http://www.renewa...nts.html Do your calculations cont.
greenonions
4.1 / 5 (9) Jan 02, 2016
Do your calculations on the cost of power when the panels are 30 cents a watt Eikka - and then show me how nuclear is going to beat that. I know I know - it is intermittent - which is why we have to include the cost of storage. You say 5 years to build a nuke. Show me one real world nuke that was built in 5 years - for conception to production. Now tell me the real time frame. Now do your fancy calculations - and tell us what the cost of solar plus storage will be in the same time frame.
kochevnik
2.6 / 5 (5) Jan 02, 2016
@popua Equipping individual residences with PV panels doesn't make a lot of sense, if the goal is to decrease the demand on centralized power plants
Most residential demand occurs during daylight, so power can stream directly from panels without any storage issue. Moreover the electric car provides storage for night, as well as the surplus energy piped into the grid

Centralized power plants will be useless once PV is fully implemented
@greenonions It seems that the authors of this report are not too aware of the falling costs of both solar and storage. http://cleantechn...y-model/ (30 cents a watt thin film)
Do not overlook the new marked for used PV equipment, with prices often 1/3 new. Many PV users upgrade their systems and sell off equipment that mismatches. For example a charge controller may only handle 50volts while a new system operates at 100volts.
greenonions
3.9 / 5 (7) Jan 02, 2016
kochevnik
Do not overlook the new marked for used PV equipment
Great thoughts kochevnik. What will the cost of used solar panels- or used car batteries be 10 years from now? There will probably be a whole industry springs up re-selling used equipment.
gkam
2.4 / 5 (17) Jan 02, 2016
I keep on hearing statements like this: "The cost of the network has to be recovered, so people who don't own solar PV panels on their rooftops have to pay what the PV owners don't pay"
---------------------------------------------------

What nonsense! This guy got his information from power companies. My solar PV will generate power at PEAK, yet I use most of my power off-peak. So, I am giving 35 cent power in return for 9 to 14-cent power. And I do it right where it is needed, at the end of a supply line.

BTW, the power company advised me they will monitor the line for any needs of upgrading, which they will do at no charge. They want the power. And they are very happy to see my new pure-electric vehicle, which gets charged at night by baseload.
kochevnik
3.3 / 5 (7) Jan 02, 2016
@greenonions What will the cost of used solar panels- or used car batteries be 10 years from now? There will probably be a whole industry springs up re-selling used equipment.
Studing the electric properties of solar panel, one can see that shading one cell can overheat that one cell. Panels are not immortal and the remaining 35-71 cells are in perfect operating orders. They can be salvaged and installed in a new panel. Also many failed panels are only suffering one failed cell, which can be replaced for $3. Like automobile market, solar equipment can last as long as the owner keeps up maintenance

As I post this I am running on 100% direct sun fusion energy, without any battery or grid. Moreover the weather is cloudy. I only have a controller to convert the DC48volt panel to my computers voltage
gkam
2 / 5 (16) Jan 02, 2016
You are right. I think Stumpy did the installation of used panels for fractions of original cost. Darn smart.
Eikka
4 / 5 (8) Jan 02, 2016
Also many failed panels are only suffering one failed cell, which can be replaced for $3.


The cost of de-laminating and then re-gluing an entire solar panel to replace one failed cell is more costly than making a whole new panel, if it can be done without damaging the rest of the cells in the first place.

Funny how anti renewable haters like you are so willing to criticize the subsidies given to renewables - but then go all hyper theoretical when we start talking nuclear.


Many of the nuclear powereplants built when we were still building them were built in about 5 years. There's nothing theoretical about it. Take a random power station on wikipedia:

https://en.wikipe...er_Plant

Construction Permit Issued: May 19, 1966
Synchronized to the Grid: November 1970

Eikka
3.9 / 5 (7) Jan 02, 2016
What nonsense! This guy got his information from power companies. My solar PV will generate power at PEAK, yet I use most of my power off-peak.


So do so many others, which is the whole problem. You produce power when you're not using it, and using power when you're not producing it.

You're not actually helping.

The "peak" you are talking about is no longer the real peak for the rest of the power system. The real peak is now shifted to when the solar panels output is waning down, as illustrated by the graphs in the article.

So, I am giving 35 cent power in return for 9 to 14-cent power.


No you're not, because the glut of solar power during the middle of the day pushes the market price down. It is no longer worth 35 cents because there's more supply than demand.

As more and more solar panels come online, the worth of your power falls down to zero and negative as it has already done in Europe. Yet you keep getting paid subsidies and net metering.
Eikka
3.5 / 5 (8) Jan 02, 2016
Do your calculations on the cost of power when the panels are 30 cents a watt Eikka


The cost of panels is not the whole cost of the hardware or maintenance. It's actually less than half the total system cost, which includes labor and capital cost.

And the real output of a panel is still only 10-15% of the nominal power, which is something you don't see mentioned anywhere. An actual Watt leveled over the average 24 hour day out of a 30 cent panel is more like $2.50 plus labor and maintenance.

But we don't need to make any theoretical considerations, because the EIA already states how much we're actually paying for solar power in federal subsidies and incentives. It's roughly $230 per MWh or 23 cents a kWh. The cost of the solar panels is irrelevant in this because the cost is being driven by how much the government is willing to pay for it.

Nobody will sell for anything less - why would they?
Eikka
3.2 / 5 (9) Jan 02, 2016
Without the government subsidies, renewable sources such as solar and wind would have to compete in price rather than just collect a set fixed reward without competition.

Solar power producers would actually have to think about storing power in batteries or hydroelectric dams to sell it later, and actually invest in the technology instead of expecting everyone else to do it for free for them.

Instead, the subsidy schemes make it possible to build more intermittent renewable power than the grid can handle because the fixed prices decouple supply from demand. You can produce power even if nobody wants or needs it. When it comes to paying the cost of adapting to this fluctuating output, it's again someone else's problem.

That is why renewable subsidies are a completely different animal compared to energy subsidies in general. They don't encourage progress, they retard it.
Eikka
3.2 / 5 (9) Jan 02, 2016
I am giving 35 cent power in return for 9 to 14-cent power.


Also on this point: you're getting paid net metering PLUS federal and state subsides and incentives on the panels, so you're actually getting subsidized to the tune of 32...37 cents per kWh combined - or more.

Unless you were an idiot and just bought your stuff and installed them without applying to any of the programs, which I doubt you did because it would never actually pay off that way.

The LCOE of residential rooftop solar power according to a 2014 NREL estimate, in California, is between 16-26 cents per kWh or more than it would cost to buy the power from the grid. Rooftop solar is roughly twice as expensive as utility scale PV because of the economies of scale, or lack thereof.

greenonions
4 / 5 (8) Jan 02, 2016
Eikka - nice dodge - but I asked 'if we decided to build a bunch of nukes today - how long before they started producing power' So your answer conveniently omits planning and permitting time doesn't it? Here - from the NEA -
As nuclear power plants are complex construction projects, their construction periods are longer than other large power plants. It is typically expected to take 5 to 7 years to build a large nuclear unit (not including the time required for planning and licensing).
From - https://www.oecd-...FAQ.html But let's indulge your oversight - and assume we are talking about 5 years. Why don't you answer the question? What is the cost of a Kwh of power from a nuke 5 years from now - vs the cost of power from a solar panel?
gkam
2 / 5 (16) Jan 02, 2016
Eikka does not understand how it works here.

I do not get paid for my time of generation, but pay for my time of use. They trade my kWh for their kWh, even though mine are worth more. I am fine with that.

And his idea of flooding the market with my PV power is purely ridiculous. The 35 cent rate is what my power is sold at by the utility, not what I get. That rate is set by the PUC.
greenonions
4.1 / 5 (9) Jan 02, 2016
Eikka
They don't encourage progress, they retard it.
Right - because there has been so little progress in the field of solar panels over the past 50 years! Here do some reading https://en.wikipe...8%29.jpg
http://cleantechn...s-heres/

Being that you don't know what you are talking about - why do you keep talking?
Lex Talonis
3 / 5 (4) Jan 03, 2016
Eikka - I love you.

Now about new klear power.

We need to try the christly path, using the power of prayer to illuminate our souls, our lives and the grid.

If jesus can blast into low earth orbit, without rockets, he can surely blast us facially with his love and light.

A prayer circle is to be formed at the start of Feburary, around Fuckashima.

Stay tuned.
kochevnik
3.5 / 5 (8) Jan 03, 2016
@Eikka The cost of de-laminating and then re-gluing an entire solar panel to replace one failed cell is more costly than making a whole new panel, if it can be done without damaging the rest of the cells in the first place.
Any project is unaffordable if you imagine one of your overpaid nuke plant workers doing it for $200/hr. A product like DSR-5 can delaminate with soaking then the defective cell can be removed and a replacement retabbed for about $3. If someone makes $200/hour I doubt he would go about fixing panels or his Mercedes himself. To such a person your point is also moot
And the real output of a panel is still only 10-15% of the nominal power, which is something you don't see mentioned anywhere.
Wrong. Amorphous panels can utilize ambient light, and are not directionally sensitive to sun angle. Moreover many install trackers to keep monocrystalline panels at optimal angle
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.3 / 5 (12) Jan 03, 2016
One thing that both sides of this discussion fail to appreciate is the strategic value of nuke plants. Despite fukushima, nukes can be counted upon to supply power during natural disasters, economic and social collapse, and wars more reliably than any other source.

Imagine a meteor impact or a supervolcano which could cover large portions of our world with soot and ash and nuclear winter. Nukes dont need sunlight. They dont need trains full of LNG or coal to supply them.

They also provide the economies of scale which make nuclear weapons and subs affordable. Delusional psychopaths may whine about this but the fact is that enemies do exist in this world and if we didnt have these deterrents our enemies certainly would.

And nukes are at present the only way of supporting independent settlements elsewhere in the solar system. They will be used both to provide power and to engineer unlimited habitable space beneath the surface of planets and moons.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.1 / 5 (13) Jan 03, 2016
Fissiles are freedom. They enable us to operate in environments where no other power source would suffice. They are a necessary component of off-world colonization.

Future gens will be thanking us for having the foresight to engineer that farce known as the cold war as an excuse to produce the 7000-10,000 tons of the stuff that we now possess.
kochevnik
2 / 5 (8) Jan 03, 2016
One thing that both sides of this discussion fail to appreciate is the strategic value of nuke plants. Despite fukushima, nukes can be counted upon to supply power during natural disasters, economic and social collapse, and wars more reliably than any other source.
Nukes can be counted upon to CAUSE natural disasters
the fact is that enemies do exist in this world and if we didnt have these deterrents our enemies certainly would.
Enemies like ISIS themselves paid for and trained by USA in Langley. ISIS command centere in Turkey is located in the USA embassy
kochevnik
2.3 / 5 (6) Jan 04, 2016
rbrtwjohnson WillieWard Vietvet Uncle Ira all in bed together. Better close the door quick so they can continue their orgy of denial.

"According to the former Prime Minister of Lebanon, Saad Hariri, the United States runs ISIS operations in Iraq out of its embassy in Ankara, Turkey. The plan to carve up Iraq and spark a regional war in the Middle East was masterminded by the Atlantic Council, according to Hariri."

The facts hurt these little people who have some vested interest in kicking the can down the road. Always wrong but they like it that way
gkam
1.8 / 5 (15) Jan 04, 2016
"Future gens will be thanking us for having the foresight to engineer" radioactive contamination of the Earth.

Probably not. The use of extremes and brute force have given way to more enlightened thought and mature and subtle responses to to our problems.. Brutal berserkers can go elsewhere. I suggest the Middle East.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (5) Jan 04, 2016
'if we decided to build a bunch of nukes today - how long before they started producing power' So your answer conveniently omits planning and permitting time doesn't it?

A larger problem is that there are, globally, only a handful of companies qualified to build nuclear powerplants. Even if we were to issue the build orders for the huge numbers needed we couldn't build them any faster than is the case (currently about 60 reactors are being built, and we need to consider that a number of older ones are being shut down - so the net number of additional reactors is lower than this).

It's not like with wind or solar where you can set up a new company that can do this within a couple of months. Building (and operating!) nuclear power plants doesn't scale easily.

If we take the best case scenario of 4 years construction time and the best case scenario of 60 powerplants simultaneously then it's easy to see that nuclear is a no-show.
gkam
2.2 / 5 (17) Jan 04, 2016
No solar facility has ever melted down and released deadly radioactive contamination. None.

No wind facility has ever polluted the area with radioactive contamination. None.

We cannot afford the cost, nor the effects nor the dangers of nuclear power.
WillieWard
2.8 / 5 (9) Jan 04, 2016
No one has been killed by Fukushima radiation. No one.
Solar/wind with much more cases of leukemia/cancer, confirmed.
http://en.wikiped...erations
http://futureofen...newbles/
gkam
2 / 5 (16) Jan 04, 2016
Willie, did you look up "Chernobyl children"?

I urge everybody to do that. It ought to cure us of nuclearphilia.
WillieWard
2.8 / 5 (9) Jan 04, 2016
gkam
1.8 / 5 (15) Jan 04, 2016
Cut and paste means nothing, Willie.

Did you look up the pictures of Chernobyl children?

Do you still "support" nuclear power? Even after you have seen what it does to children?
TheGhostofOtto1923
4 / 5 (12) Jan 04, 2016
Probably not. The use of extremes and brute force have given way to more enlightened thought and mature and subtle responses to to our problems..
I suppose gkam could reconfigure all those solar concentrator plants to vaporize any nasty impactors or warheads heading our way. Or at least clear the atmosphere of all the dust and debris, which is why he may prefer them to be in orbit.

And of course if we build them large enough we could have windmills on mars, or PV plants on titan. And we could power earth borers and excavating equipment with excess peoples from third world countries. Better than them drowning in the mediterranean or invading munich.

That subtle and dreamy enough for you?
Cut and paste means nothing, Willie.

Did you look up the pictures of Chernobyl children?
Why dont you cut and paste some?
gkam
1.8 / 5 (15) Jan 04, 2016
Look them up, otto. Do it, unless you are still SCARED.

https://sp.yimg.c...mp;h=300
gkam
1.8 / 5 (15) Jan 04, 2016
TheGhostofOtto1923
4 / 5 (12) Jan 04, 2016
Nukes can be counted upon to CAUSE natural disasters
Koch - have we descended to the level of aping 70s t shirt propaganda slogans like the garden variety psychopath who shows up here from time to time?
ISIS themselves paid for and trained by USA in Langley. ISIS command centere in Turkey is located in the USA embassy
... Oop I guess we have.

Peaceful applications for nuclear demolitions have been explored since the 50s.
http://large.stan...powell1/

Gnome - huge cavity habitable after 6 mos.
https://en.wikipe...ct_Gnome

Dugout - make trench, build habitat, plow over with detritus.
https://www.youtu...2QZ16Qkw

-They may not be suitable for use on our planet except in emergencies
https://www.youtu...9QYaSVEo

-but they will have many applications elsewhere in the system, which is where they WILL be used.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.9 / 5 (14) Jan 04, 2016
Look them up, otto. Do it, unless you are still SCARED

https://www.etsy....-t-shirt

you fucking retard
gkam
1.9 / 5 (17) Jan 04, 2016
"you fucking retard"
------------------------------------

You have revealed more of your own character than mine.
FritzVonDago
2.5 / 5 (11) Jan 04, 2016
Jimmy Carter started this Solar PV sillyness in the 70s and Now Obama has given billions to his supporter chasing the solar sillyness dream and what do we have to show for it. 40 year old technology presupposed is what... What a miserable joke the democratic and the Obama crooks are.
gkam
2.2 / 5 (17) Jan 04, 2016
I guess you are ignorant of the relative costs of nuclear versus wind and/or solar-generated power. Shall I rub it in?

Meanwhile, you can sign up for some of that neat nuke power, at fifteen cents while we will be getting much cheaper stuff from renewables, . . and no radioactive waste to worry about.
greenonions
4.6 / 5 (10) Jan 04, 2016
Fritz - guess you have not heard that U.S.A. is not the whole world. I already posted this link - but maybe you will come out of your limited little world view for a second - and see what is happening - https://en.wikipe...8%29.jpg

There is massive amounts of research going on in the world in the area of solar panels. The cost has been dropping fast (see link) - and they will almost certainly be the cheapest energy source (already is in parts of the world) - with the added benefits of being non polluting, and low carbon. The future is here - sorry you are so consumed with your political blinders - that you are not aware of the exciting world opening before your eyes.
kochevnik
1 / 5 (3) Jan 04, 2016
Pink slime alone should bring efficiency above 40%, if it can be commercialized
animah
4.3 / 5 (11) Jan 05, 2016
No one has been killed by Fukushima radiation

I have relatives in Japan and can vouch for the fact that your statement is a gross simplification.

Estimating deaths by radiation alone is impossible - but deaths caused by the Fukushima *accident* are very real. Consider that 80,000 people were evacuated on short notice and are still, to this day, unable to return because of continuing contamination.

This evacuation certainly spared many from radiation exposure, thus making your statement that no one died of it plausible, but it also makes your opinion cruel beyond belief.

Population effects include loss of livelihood (particularly farms and fishing vessels) throwing thousands of families in poverty, depression, alcoholism and sometimes suicide.

cont'd
animah
4.3 / 5 (12) Jan 05, 2016
This gaping hole in the region's fabric has thrown surrounding rural communities that were not evacuated into economic disarray. Ports, roads and railway lines stuck in the quarantined zone disrupting the travel grid. Factories and trucks unusable destroying billions in economic capacity. Harvests, livestock, urban sewerage rotting in place creating biological contamination. fuel leaking into the ground from tens of thousands of car tanks as they rust through.

And of course the kicker: all that contamination, as well as radiation, seeping into the regional water table.

So I'll calm down now but let me just say this:

You have no fucking idea what you're talking about.
Vietvet
3.9 / 5 (14) Jan 05, 2016
@animah

Your comments deserve a 100 stars!
InterestedAmateur
2.9 / 5 (15) Jan 05, 2016
And apparently no-one indirectly died due to Chernobyl and WTF radiation hasn't anything to do with anyone in the USA..

"Of the 220 persons who worked on The Conqueror on location in Utah in 1955, 91 had contracted cancer as of the early 1980s and 46 died of it, including stars John Wayne, Susan Hayward, and Agnes Moorehead, and director Dick Powell. Experts say under ordinary circumstances only 30 people out of a group of that size should have gotten cancer. The cause? No one can say for sure, but many attribute the cancers to radioactive fallout from U.S. atom bomb tests in nearby Nevada. The whole ghastly story is told in The Hollywood Hall of Shame by Harry and Michael Medve."

WillieWard
2.3 / 5 (12) Jan 05, 2016
Consider that 80,000 people were evacuated on short notice..
Sensationalist mass media and scaremongers have induced more deaths(abortions, anxieties/heart attacks, suicides) than radiation.
"The anti-radiation stigma also levied a psychological toll, with some healthy people committing suicide."
"study found that coal causes 387 times more deaths per unit of energy than nuclear power."
http://thebulleti...ants8817
" not have caused any increase in the cancer rate."
http://www.nytime...isk.html
http://www.indepe...096.html
http://en.wikiped...iophobia
Earth itself is naturally radioactive; it includes rare-earth metals used in solar/wind farms.
WillieWard
2.3 / 5 (12) Jan 05, 2016
"Neighbors like nuclear power"
"Nuclear produces tiny amounts of nuclear waste"
"The more people know about nuclear power, the more they favor it."
http://nuclear-ec...4251.jpg
http://nuclear-ec...-summer/
"Plant Neighbors Express Strong Support for Nuclear Energy"
http://www.nei.or...-Opinion
gkam
1.8 / 5 (15) Jan 05, 2016
Cutting and pasting biased articles does nothing for your cause, Willie.

Show us by moving to Fukushima or going to Chernobyl. I have already been inside nuclear powerplants, wind farms, PV arrays, geothermal plants, gas-fired plants, and even oil-fired facilities of ours and coal burners of others. Why don't you go look instead of just bleating the words of others?
WillieWard
2.6 / 5 (10) Jan 05, 2016
I have already been inside nuclear powerplants, wind farms, PV arrays, geothermal plants, gas-fired plants, and even oil-fired facilities of ours and coal burners of others.
More chances of cancer in a wind/solar farm(rare-earth metals) than in a nuclear power plant, because nuclear power plants have thick radiation shielding.

Mike_Massen
2.9 / 5 (15) Jan 05, 2016
WillieWard being immensely disingenuous claims
No one has been killed by Fukushima radiation. No one.
Solar/wind with much more cases of leukemia/cancer, confirmed.
http://en.wikiped...erations
http://futureofen...enewbles
No

There's only one ref to cancer, its in the 2nd link & that is only in respect of natural (alpha) thorium re extraction, nothing at all re turbines/panels installed !

WillieWard you are scare-mongering and you know it, any background radiation sources which find their way into magnets are repdominantly Alpha emitters and you *should* know those Alpha particles energies are attenuated by ~1-2cm of air and then float up as Helium.

Whereas nuclear is a plethora of radionucleotides, from Alpha through to beta, gamma etc.

Why are you intent on embarrassing yourself, how much are you paid to corrupt integrity ?

Learn Physics !
gkam
2.1 / 5 (15) Jan 05, 2016
A wind turbine collapsed in Europe last year. No land was contaminated. No folk had to be evacuated. No fears of invisible radiation.

And there was no radioactive waste to worry about, no radioactive reactor and components, deadly for decades. The rare earth metals are in the magnets. I suggest you look into what you are saying just so you can be appropriately embarrassed.
WillieWard
2.3 / 5 (9) Jan 05, 2016
No land was contaminated.
"biggest windfarm ​responsible for high levels of cancer-causing chemical in public water​ supply​"
"higher levels of cancer"
"Test results obtained by Rachel Connor over a four-year period showed high levels of potentially cancer-causing chemical trihalomethane (THM)."
http://www.dailyr...-4881760
"1,000 litres of oil leaked from a turbine"
"..and contaminate groundwater."
http://www.sunday...1.282890
"This toxic lake poisons Chinese farmers, their children and their land. It is what's left behind after making the magnets for Britain's latest wind turbines..."
http://www.dailym...ale.html
gkam
1.9 / 5 (14) Jan 05, 2016
Well I guess we will have to post the story of Uranium miners and their lung cancer rates.
WillieWard
2.5 / 5 (8) Jan 05, 2016
miners and their lung cancer rates
It is needed silica (silicon dioxide) for solar cells.
Silica can cause "silicosis", people to suffer from lung disease.
"Silicosis is a form of occupational lung disease caused by inhalation of crystalline silica dust, and is marked by inflammation and scarring in the form of nodular lesions in the upper lobes of the lungs. It is a type of pneumoconiosis."
"Silicosis (particularly the acute form) is characterized by shortness of breath, cough, fever, and cyanosis (bluish skin). It may often be misdiagnosed as pulmonary edema (fluid in the lungs), pneumonia, or tuberculosis."
"Silicosis resulted in 46,000 deaths globally in 2013 down from 55,000 deaths in 1990."
https://en.wikipe...ilicosis
Solar/wind indirectly kills much more than nuclear, more than Fukushima and Chernobyl.
gkam
1.6 / 5 (14) Jan 05, 2016
How many folk outside of heavy metal foundries get Silicosis? Mainly those on the beaches are affected, where it blows in the wind. Making silicon cells does not do it.
Uncle Ira
4.7 / 5 (14) Jan 05, 2016
A lookee loo to see if glam-Skippy is being the expert again and still not learning he should check first before postum.

How many folk outside of heavy metal foundries get Silicosis?


I bet Google-Skippy can answer that even if glam-Skippy can't.

Silicosis is the most common occupational lung disease worldwide; it occurs everywhere, but is especially common in developing countries


Oh, out side of the metal foundries?

silicosis is an occupational hazard to mining, sandblasting, quarry, ceramics and foundry workers, as well as grinders, stone cutters, refractory brick workers, tombstone workers, pottery workers, flint knappers and others.


Should we check this too?

Mainly those on the beaches are affected, where it blows in the wind.


Non.

non-occupational form of silicosis has been described that is caused by long-term exposure to sand dust in desert areas, with cases reported from the Sahara, Libyan desert and the Negev.
kochevnik
3.4 / 5 (10) Jan 05, 2016
@WillieWard More chances of cancer in a wind/solar farm(rare-earth metals) than in a nuclear power plant, because nuclear power plants have thick radiation shielding.
No, that is just your skull
antialias_physorg
4.2 / 5 (10) Jan 05, 2016
More chances of cancer in a wind/solar farm(rare-earth metals) than in a nuclear power plant, because nuclear power plants have thick radiation shielding.

You really have no clue about the differences between alpha, and gamma radiation, do you? It's really a laugh seeing you post stuff you know nothing about and thinking you're making a point.

(actually it's more kinda sad/pathetic to watch)
greenonions
5 / 5 (7) Jan 05, 2016
When you understand the complexity of our energy system - you realize the debate about which specific fuel causes the most injuries/deaths - makes Willie look pretty stupid (so what's new?). Here is a pretty good summation of the whole situation - http://motherboar...r-source

The esteemed journal The Lancet estimated that car exhaust resulted in 3.2 million premature deaths in 2010 alone. That gives oil a major claim to being the deadliest energy source in the world. Its closest rival, of course, is coal.


Nukes do pretty well under this analysis - but as always - Willie will not discuss the cost of power from nukes - and how billions of people will die of poverty if we adopt wide scale nukes - as opposed to cheap renewables (that is based on Eikka, and MR166 thoughtful postings).
TheGhostofOtto1923
4 / 5 (12) Jan 05, 2016
A wind turbine collapsed in europe last year
Uh many more than one.

"Caithness also has documented 221 separate incidences of blade failure, with pieces of blades documented to have flown over 1,300 meters—or 4,266 feet (4/5 of a mile). Blade pieces have gone through roofs and walls of nearby buildings.

"At least 121 structural failures have been recorded too, including entire wind turbines that have crashed to the ground. The website www.windaction.org documents many of these. Turbines have crashed to the ground in school yards, near homes, roads and walking paths where only by sheer luck was no one underneath when the multi-ton structures collapsed."

-Here is a site documenting just how dangerous these humongous blenders are and how much people hate them
http://www.windaction.org/
RealityCheck
3.1 / 5 (15) Jan 05, 2016
Hi Willie. :)

Still at it? Have you figured it out yet?

If all those people had NOT been evacuated from affected Fukushima (and Chernobyl) zones, THEN they WOULD be radiation-related-deaths cases sooner/later.

Your 'stats' also miss out present/ongoing costs to society/economy/environment due to evacuation made necessary by the nuclear dangers.

You're still 'fixated' (on spamming/trolling your 'paid for' fossil/nuclear interests/lobby 'propaganda-of-part-truths-and-lies'). You miss all relevant realities involved.

What use are you to humanity progress, let alone science advancement, if you start every 'new year' with 'last years paid-for lies crap' which clearly demonstrates your total uselessness to science/humanity?

Wise up, Willie. Get a real life/cause more useful to everyone, including your own family/descendants, in the longer term reality we are all navigating together whether we like it or not.

Good luck wising up before NEXT new year, Willie. Stay safe. :)
WillieWard
2.2 / 5 (10) Jan 05, 2016
Fukushima (and Chernobyl) zones
Here on Earth, the planet we live (maybe except gskam), there is natural radiation 40 times more than near Fukushima and 160 times more than City of Pripyat (Chernobyl), and these places are safe, no dangerous for humans, plants, and animals.
http://resources....ces.html
http://webecoist....-places/
kochevnik
4.2 / 5 (5) Jan 06, 2016
Sun is natural radiation yet it still kills people
AGreatWhopper
2 / 5 (8) Jan 07, 2016

Good luck wising up before NEXT new year, Willie. Stay safe. :)


No; go play in traffic.
antigoresockpuppet
4.2 / 5 (10) Jan 07, 2016
gkam 2.5 /5 (8) Jan 04, 2016
Look them up, otto. Do it, unless you are still SCARED.

gkam2.6 /5 (10) Jan 04, 2016
"you fucking retard"

------------------------------------

You have revealed more of your own character than mine


Yeah, but your own lie exceeds both. Is there anyone on here that isn't a mental case and/or a pathelogical liar? Yeah, character, gkam, like lying every time you open your mouth. You've posted endlessly about how you have Otto blocked. Yet every article you have a comment for him. Now, double down and lie about your lying.
I have to wonder if the puerile insults are stupidity or mental illness. I mean, "SCARED" is straight out primary school recess. And "I know you are but what am I" goes back to pre-school. You're really not very good at this, are you?

Get a life and if you can't manage that... Think about it. If your life is worthless, this doesn't make that any better.

Don't go away mad. Just go away.
gkam
1 / 5 (12) Jan 07, 2016
Hey sockpuppet, who are you? Just another SCARED troll, acting tough because in real life you are a wimp?

Sorry, Toots, I proved who I am, like Mike, but the rest of you are silly cowards, hiding behind phony names because you are too scared (yes, SCARED), to face up to your words.

Who are you Mister Big Mouth? Face up to your own words.
I am here in real life, and not some cowering troll, who cannot fit into the real world.
Uncle Ira
4.6 / 5 (11) Jan 07, 2016
Now, double down and lie about your lying.


If he makes another postum you get some of that.

I have to wonder if the puerile insults are stupidity or mental illness. I mean, "SCARED" is straight out primary school recess.


I keep waiting for him to call me a poopy head.

You're really not very good at this, are you?


I did not think so me, and I told him that a couple of times too. But it seem like I was really wrong about that because he assured me he is winning and beats Otto-Skippy at every turn.

If your life is worthless, this doesn't make that any better.


You are right about that Cher. All this does is make him grumpy and pouting..

Just go away.


I might be in the minority here. Choot I am probably the minority of one, but I hope he does not go away. He adds a lot to the place you should see the fan mails I get. From peoples who don't even makes the postums here too. He is the new-agey version of Sarah Palin.
gkam
1 / 5 (12) Jan 07, 2016
Trolls are the bane of the Decent Folk. You can tell them by their inability to discuss the technical issues , but rely on silly remarks made in goober-speak. It may fool the tourists, but not the rest of us.

My work with the Southern Companies showed me the South has some intelligent folk, really good engineers, but the ones we see here are like Ira.
antialias_physorg
4.1 / 5 (9) Jan 07, 2016
Here on Earth, the planet we live (maybe except gskam), there is natural radiation 40 times more than near Fukushima and 160 times more than City of Pripyat (Chernobyl)

If you want to go live there: be my guest.

but the argument that you are making is: "This man has slaughtered 20 people. But he is not a killer because I can show you a man who has killed 50"

Does something like that count as logic on planet WillieWard?
WillieWard
3 / 5 (6) Jan 07, 2016
"Well, the total amount of people killed by nuclear radiation was zero. The total harmed by radiation was zero. The total private property harmed by radiation was zero. Nuclear radiation hurt nobody." Tsunami is that caused destruction.
"Later the United Nations commissioned a multi-country task team to investigate the potential long-term health effects on people and the conclusion they came to was that it would be zero."
"So the primary lesson of Fukushima is that nuclear power is far safer than anybody realised."
http://businesste...-hurdle/
greenonions
3.9 / 5 (7) Jan 07, 2016
The total private property harmed by radiation was zero.
When your post contains such blatant lies - you are understood to be nothing but a troll. Here read up on Fukushima.http://www.psr.or...ima.html
all of the land within 12 miles (20 km) of the destroyed nuclear power plant, encompassing an area of about 230 square miles (600 sq km), and an additional 80 square miles (200 sq km) located northwest of the plant, were declared too radioactive for human habitation.[iii] All persons living in these areas were evacuated and the regions were declared to be permanent "exclusion" zones.
Uncle Ira
4.7 / 5 (12) Jan 07, 2016
Trolls are the bane of the Decent Folk.


Non Cher, contraire. Palin-Like-Buffoons are the banes of Decent Folk. You are hurting your cause with you mental conditions.

You can tell them by their inability to discuss the technical issues , but rely on silly remarks made in goober-speak. It may fool the tourists, but not the rest of us.


But you are the one who gets called for messing up the technical issues because you hope nobody checks. It may fool the grey haired 70s hippie chicks, but to everybody here it only makes for real big fun. Especially when you are winning beating and besting too.

My work with the Southern Companies showed me the South has some intelligent folk, really good engineers, but the ones we see here are like Ira.


My work My work My work My work showed me showed me showed me blah blah blurt and blah,,,

Skippy why you do not work up some new material?
gkam
1 / 5 (12) Jan 07, 2016
We outgrew your silly twitter-like comments long ago.

Yup. I consulted to the Southern Companies for about ten years until I retired. From whom did you get paid to educate their technical folk?

When I proved myself to you, I expected a gentlemanly admission, but you did not even have the guts, the character to admit it. Your lies to otto and the rest have gotten you some votes, but you know deep inside you got beat at your own silly game of gotcha.

This thread regards utility-scale deployment of PV. Since I was a Senior Energy Services Engineer in Technical Services for PG&E, it is directly in my field. How does it fit in with your boats?
Uncle Ira
4.7 / 5 (12) Jan 07, 2016
When I proved myself to you,


But you did not prove anything except in your own mind. Smoke and mirrors and double talk is not proof.

I consulted to the Southern Companies for about ten years until I retired. Since I was a Senior Energy Services Engineer in Technical Services for PG&E, it is directly in my field.


You must be really proud of that mental condition. Why else would take every opportunity to show him off? So you think if you say it ONE more time it will start to turn around? Just one more will do it? Cher you got the serious mental condition because the "if I say it.just one more time" has only gone is one direction. "If I say it just one more things will turn around" has not worked, is not working and just won't work. Cher pardon my French, but you are bat-doo-doo crazy you.

How does it fit in with your boats?


What? At least I know marine power (and other things) better than you know,,,, well so far just about anything?
gkam
1 / 5 (11) Jan 07, 2016
Thank you for proving my point.
Uncle Ira
4.6 / 5 (11) Jan 07, 2016
P.S. for you glam-Skippy.

Cher as much as like fooling around with you and stuffs I got to get some real work done. Maybe somebody else, Otto-Skippy maybe, will come around to goof around with you.

Or if he is not around, maybe you sneak in some more of your really good slogans or make up some stuffs that nobody will check or tell a bunch tales about all the things you squeezed in one life time, eh?
WillieWard
3.4 / 5 (5) Jan 07, 2016
The total private property harmed by radiation was zero.
"The fact of the matter is that most of the area around Fukushima IS perfectly safe. They've cordoned off areas as uninhabitable with a limit of 20 mSv/a that is based on absolutely nothing."
"In accordance with current knowledge of radiation health risks, the Health Physics Society recommends against quantitative estimation of health risks below an individual dose of 50 millisievert (mSv) in one year or a lifetime dose of 100 mSv above that received from natural sources.
There is substantial and convincing scientific evidence for health risks following high-dose exposures. However, below 50–100 mSv (which includes occupational and environmental exposures), risks of health effects are either too small to be observed or are nonexistent."
http://hps.org/do...10-2.pdf
Uncle Ira
4.6 / 5 (11) Jan 07, 2016
Thank you for proving my point.


You are welcome for it too podna. See you later Cher.
greenonions
4 / 5 (8) Jan 07, 2016
Willie - did you see the word 'most' in your first sentence? Once again - here are the FACTS Willie - not some bias opinion piece -
all of the land within 12 miles (20 km) of the destroyed nuclear power plant, encompassing an area of about 230 square miles (600 sq km), and an additional 80 square miles (200 sq km) located northwest of the plant, were declared too radioactive for human habitation


You are posting lies - Wille - Facts are clear in this case.
WillieWard
4 / 5 (4) Jan 07, 2016
were declared too radioactive for human habitation
"They've cordoned off areas as uninhabitable with a limit of 20 mSv/a that is based on absolutely nothing." ...
http://hps.org/do...10-2.pdf
compare it with natural radiation: 5 mSv City of Pripyat (near Chernobyl); 20 mSv Fukushima; 35 mSv Kerala Beach, India; 700 mSv Ramsar, Iran; 800 mSv Guarapari Beach, Brazil.
http://resources....ces.html
http://webecoist....-places/
http://en.wikiped...adiation

Facts are clear in this case.

gkam
1 / 5 (12) Jan 07, 2016
"Cher as much as like fooling around with you and stuffs I got to get some real work done"
----------------------------------

Good. I do not know what kind of "professional" plays semantic games on the computer at work.
Uncle Ira
4.6 / 5 (11) Jan 07, 2016
I do not know what kind of "professional" plays semantic games on the computer at work.


Well I am sure you think that is witty and wise. Just full of "technical discussions" and "science", eh? But Cher, of course you do not know that. And you don't know a lot of things. My work is busy then slow then busy some more then slow some more. A lot of peoples work is that way.

Choot, you think all these peoples on the physorg post here only when they are in their home and off the clock? Non, Cher. 90% of the stuffs that get postumed here get postumed while they are on the clock or at least while they are on their work computer.

It's true Skippy, to quote an expert "Look him up".
greenonions
3.9 / 5 (7) Jan 07, 2016
Willie
Facts are clear in this case.
Yes they are - and your lies are lies.

Keep up the lies Willie - I guess if it is not your friends and family dying - you happily don't give a shit. Here - read a pretty basic article on the subjects. http://www.nytime...amp;_r=0
A quarter mile from the Fukushima plant (residents have been evacuated from a 12-mile zone around the plant) radiation levels of 0.1 rem per hour have been measured, and researchers agree that four days of such exposure would increase a person's risk of cancer. But some would argue that an even shorter exposure would raise the risk
gkam
1 / 5 (12) Jan 07, 2016
Is it really true you folk cheat your employers like that?

You must be really proud of your professionalism.
Uncle Ira
4.7 / 5 (12) Jan 07, 2016
Is it really true you folk cheat your employers like that?


If you really knew anything about anything you would realize how goofy that is.

You must be really proud of your professionalism.


I happy with my lot in life. Non complaints. I think I am pretty good at what I do. My bosses must much think I am pretty good at it too since I get regular raises me. That's all that matters,,, am I happy with how I do my job, and are my bosses happy with how I do my job.

Unlike you, I do not care the wit for what some Skippy on the interweb thinks. Unlike you I don't have nothing to prove, especially to some goofy Skippy who is just the couyon on the other end of the interweb.

You know what else? I know that if I really want it bad some sort of gravitas in life, there are a lot better places to go get it than the comment section of the physorg.
gkam
1 / 5 (12) Jan 07, 2016
"am I happy with how I do my job, and are my bosses happy with how I do my job."
------------------------------------------
And we are really happy for you. Really.

Now, take that fascinating fact to facebook, where it belongs.

This is a science site.

You got beaten at your own game. Did you tell your wife?
RealityCheck
2.6 / 5 (10) Jan 07, 2016
Hi Willie. :)

Those are RARE natural 'hot spots'. They're also of SPECIFIC 'natural' radionuclides, NOT 'man-made' varieties of more insidious/harmful types. Not only have people in those natural hotspots descended form ancestors who EVOLVED genetic/physiological REPAIR/MAINTENANCE ADAPTATIONS which NOW allow them to survive despite damaging ionizing radiation doses of THAT 'local' natural type, they also have medical interventions/abortion etc support which their ancestors did not have.

It's a choice for them to live with that 'natural' radiation. But VISITORS/TOURISTS have NO such adaptations, so are playing 'russian roulette' with exposure/ingestion; and may have cancer/other illnesses many years later not easily able to be attributed back to such temporary exposure long ago.

The point is, Willie: Would YOU/your family/descendants choose to be immersed in many MORE man-made radionuclide/radiation situations than you can avoid?

If not, then why inflict it on others? :)
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.6 / 5 (10) Jan 07, 2016
When I proved myself to you
You yourself proved you lied about your MS degree. Why dont you apologize to the people here for that?
This thread regards utility-scale deployment of PV. Since I was a Senior Energy Services Engineer in Technical Services for PG&E
Lie. I showed you that PG&E only hires degreed and licenced pros for senior level technical positions.

If you ever had this job you apparently lied to get it. You held it for awhile and then when they realized their mistake they sent you out to team-teach lunch-and-learns.

And then they canned you. Another FAIL on a CV you never had the guts to write, but you were more than willing to LIE about.

Right?
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.6 / 5 (10) Jan 07, 2016
And we are really happy for you. Really.

Now, take that fascinating fact to facebook, where it belongs.

This is a science site
Bwaahaahaaaaahaaaaaa

George you bullshit about all the dozen or so jobs you had and got fired from, all the time. Why arent you posting on a site where people might actually give a shit???
RealityCheck
2.2 / 5 (10) Jan 07, 2016
FYI: Anyone familiar with HISTORY of how many formal/expert disciplines came to BE, knows it was because of PIONEERS; INFORMAL PRACTITIONERS active in said fields BEFORE said fields became FORMALIZED 'expert disciplines' and TEACHING/PROMULGATION/CERTIFICATION of same was eventually established/administered by govt/professional bodies to set/maintain Safety/Proficiency standards. Ok? It was people like gkam who actually DID IT ALL, usually as SPECIFIC-PROJECT SUPPORT/CONSULTANTS or EXPERIENCED PRACTITIONERS, that CREATED/INITIATED the SKILL SETS/PROCEDURES which became those FORMAL STANDARDS which apply today. So, please stop disrespecting pioneers in fields that became better-informed/practised precisely BECAUSE such multi-talented/disciplinary PRACTITIONERS went from project to project when relevant fields/practices/knowledge/skill sets were in their INFANCY. Hence why many EARLY experts HAD 'no official qualifications' and 'many jobs'. Ok? So pls cool it, guys. :)
animah
4.1 / 5 (9) Jan 07, 2016
They've cordoned off areas as uninhabitable with a limit of 20 mSv/a that is based on absolutely nothing


Your 20 mSv/a figure right there, that's a lie. Here are the Fukushima radiation maps at the time of the accident and 1 year later:

http://www.world-...131.html

The red area is >= 166 milliSieverts per year. Not funny. The Govt's limit is 50.

The good news is that ambient levels are coming down with time as surface contamination gets dispersed to below unsafe levels and Govt clean up continues.. But it will take a few more years.
WillieWard
3 / 5 (6) Jan 07, 2016
researchers agree that four days of such exposure would increase a person's risk of cancer.
"no discernible increased incidence of radiation-related health effects are expected."
http://www.nytime...eed.html
"the radiation levels from Fukushima are so low that the cancer increase will be barely noticeable, and may not happen at all."
http://thebulleti...ants8817
"no substantial increase in future cancer rates is expected as a result of radiation."
http://www.indepe...096.html
"an increase in childhood thyroid cancer attributable to the accident is unlikely,"
http://www.japant...a-report
WillieWard
3 / 5 (6) Jan 07, 2016
On the other side (wind/solar):
"increasing cases of leukemia and other cancers, and multiple deaths of farm animals in these contaminated areas."
http://raremetals...ent.html
"refining of rare earths lead to increased leukemia and pancreatic cancer rates"
http://futureofen...newbles/
animah
4.1 / 5 (9) Jan 07, 2016
Cruel WillieWard cherry picking like there's no tomorrow. Here is a more scientific approach from the Oncology journal (Cancer Network):

http://www.cancer...-cancers

"It is too soon to determine the influence of radiation exposure on thyroid cancer risk among children and adolescents who were exposed to the 2011 Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant disaster in Japan, according to the lead author of findings presented at the 15th International Thyroid Congress (ITC) and 85th Annual Meeting of the American Thyroid Association (ATA) this week in Lake Buena Vista, Florida.

The report comes on the heels of a newly published epidemiological study that came to much different conclusions, based largely on the same dataset. That study's authors reported an approximately 30-fold overall increase in thyroid cancer incidence among Fukushima children and adolescents."
WillieWard
3 / 5 (6) Jan 07, 2016
"Radiation : The No-Safe-Level Myth"
http://www.hirosh...yth.html
greenonions
4.1 / 5 (9) Jan 07, 2016
Willie
"no discernible increased incidence of radiation-related health effects are expected


Because they evacuated a 12 mile radius circle around the plant. If they had listened to you - there would have been radiation related health effects . Read this New York times primer on Fukushima - and see how it shows you up to be an ignorant, uninformed liar. http://www.nytime...amp;_r=0
WillieWard
3 / 5 (6) Jan 08, 2016
35 mSv Kerala Beach; 5 mSv Chernobyl; 20 mSv Fukushima.
"A 2009 study of background radiation and cancer incidence in Kerala conducted by the Regional Cancer Center in Trivandrum, Kerala, India concluded that 'In site-specific analysis, no cancer site was significantly related to cumulative radiation dose. Leukemia was not significantly related to HBR, either.' "
http://webecoist....laces/2/
https://www.resea...lth_Phys
Fukushima incident has caused no deaths.
" not have caused any increase in the cancer rate."
"No one has been killed or sickened by the radiation"
http://www.nytime...isk.html
greenonions
3.9 / 5 (7) Jan 08, 2016
http://www.nytime...amp;_r=1

Wille
No one has been killed or sickened by the radiation


Keep lying Willie - keep lying - http://www.zerohe...injuries
WillieWard
3 / 5 (6) Jan 08, 2016
Two irradiated workers, just one questionable case of leukemia; while there are several cases of leukemia/cancer linked to wind/solar.
"Solar panels .. and wind turbines all require rare earth metals."
"Rare earth elements and metals are often located in rock containing Thorium and Uranium. "
"increasing cases of leukemia and other cancers, and multiple deaths of farm animals in these contaminated areas."
http://raremetals...ent.html
http://futureofen...newbles/
"birth defects and eight leukemia cases within five years in a community of 11,000 — after many years with no leukemia cases"
https://en.wikipe...erations
http://www.thegua...ollution
http://e360.yale....ks/2614/
gkam
1.6 / 5 (13) Jan 08, 2016
Maybe Willie can help these folks: "Vattenfall seeks to return reactors to profitability"

Or perhaps in Fukushima, where the bleeding of highly-radioactive materials continues to drain into the environment. It contaminates, it changes DNA, it kills, no matter what Willie posts.
WillieWard
3 / 5 (6) Jan 08, 2016
It contaminates, it changes DNA
radioactive rare-earth metals, renewables; wind/solar kills directly more per unit of energy generated than nuclear, even taking into account Fukushima, and much more indirectly as wind/solar needs to be backed by fossil fuels to compensate intermittency.
http://nuclear-ec...8100.jpg
http://theenergyc...ficiency
greenonions
3.7 / 5 (3) Jan 08, 2016
Wille
Two irradiated workers, just one questionable case of leukemia; while there are several cases of leukemia/cancer linked to wind/solar


Still makes you a stupid liar. No one has said that there are no hazards to wind and solar. Nothing that compares to Fukushima, or Chernobyl. But I understand that there are hazards to industry. I still drive a car, use a cell phone, use a computer etc. etc. All of these things cause sickness and death. I actually support the use of nuclear - and have been consistent about that. I just don't need to tell stupid lies like you do.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.