Can You Force People to Be "Green"?

Great Debates
41

What in the name of The Cheese are you going on about? The scenario is that existing power sources are going to continue to supply the bulk of power. You know, those sources that don’t shut down at night or in inclement weather? There’s no reason whatsoever to worry about nighttime power loss from solar if we’re still sitting squarely on coal as our primary power source.

Now, if there are people wandering around here that think we’re going to switch completely to solar…well, either they know something I don’t about giant extra-atmospheric solar collection sattelites, or they’re tripping the light fantastic. Either way it’s no concern of mine.

42

None of those things are a net loss. Paying for police is cheaper than letting crime run rampant. Paying for libraries pays off in the form of a better-educated and informed populace. Paying for catalytic converters and pollution regulations results in a cleaner environment. But paying for solar panels in New England just results in an increase in consumption of fossil fuels.

43

[QUOTE=Ravenman]
But the word “realistically” depends to a significant degree on how much we are willing to spend. Two examples. Let’s say we want to go to Mars. Fine, it’ll cost, say, $100 billion and 20 years. But if we want to go to Mars in 15 years, is it realistic? It can be if we’re willing to spend, say, $400 billion. If we want to go in 5 years, well, that’s just not possible at any price.
[/QUOTE]

I don’t think this is the case with solar. It’s like saying ‘well, we could build a bridge to the moon if we were just willing to spend enough’. True, it’s theoretically possible to build a bridge to the moon, but with current technology it’s not feasible either from an engineering or fiscal standpoint. It might as well be impossible, for all practical purposes.

Same with solar, given the state of the art today…with the caveat that we are talking about something far beyond just doubling our tripling the current amount of energy produced. If you mean ‘we could ramp up solar power to meet, say, 5% of our energy needs’, then I agree. That’s do-able and feasible, though it would cost a lot. If you mean ‘we could ramp up solar to meet, say, 20% or more of our energy needs in 2 decades’ then I’d say it’s in the realm of ‘we COULD build a bridge to the moon’.

As an example, and from memory (sorry, to lazy), Spain’s new solar plant cost something like $40 million Euro’s and puts out something like 11 MW. It’s damn big to, and the cost doesn’t include maintenance. It’s fairly impressive (I think it’s way cool, in fact), and they have a bigger one that does like 20 MW (costs more as well, of course). IIRC, 11 MW can produce enough energy for something like 6000 homes. You can do the math, but think about just trying to build enough plants to meet 20% of the needs of the US…that’s something like 20+ million houses. At 6000 homes (or even 12000 homes for the larger plants) that’s a boat load of solar plants, ehe? :slight_smile: And where would you put them all? And where would you get the materials for building them all? And the people to staff them all, maintain them all, etc etc? Then there would be the infrastructure need and probably a host of other things I’m not aware of. It’s not just a matter of cost, IMHO.

-XT

44

[QUOTE=begbert2]
What in the name of The Cheese are you going on about? The scenario is that existing power sources are going to continue to supply the bulk of power. You know, those sources that don’t shut down at night or in inclement weather? There’s no reason whatsoever to worry about nighttime power loss from solar if we’re still sitting squarely on coal as our primary power source.
[/QUOTE]

Yeah…I know. I was making a ‘joke’. :stuck_out_tongue:

-XT

45

Ah. Well, a bit after replying I thought I felt a breeze, but as this thread is about solar power and not wind power I figured I must be mistaken.

46

I submit that those things “pay” in the sense that they are generally desirable policy outcomes, not that there is a specified dollar amount of savings associated with each one.

For example, I like clean air. I don’t know how much money clean air saves me every year – I’d guess it is more than zero – but I pay for clean air because the government mandated that I buy a car with low emissions, I pay more in electricity bills so the power plant will comply with environmental regulations, and I pay more in DC income taxes so the Lawn Police will stop my neighbor from burning his leaves and trash. In the OP’s terms, all of those costs are mandated and being shoved down my throat by the government, making me “green.” Howver, just like buying tickets to a movie, I may not be getting a dollar figure return on each of these costs, but the experience is worth the price I pay.

It is entirely reasonable to think that people will accept the benefits of using renewable energy and think that it is worth the cost. Just because solar costs more, and may not make profits for some time, doesn’t mean that unprofitable ideas are not good ones. They can be good if someone is willing to pay the associated cost.

47

What we need is some genius who can make energy from snow, rain, or humidity (even in the dead of winter humidity is 30-40%, half what it is during the summer), because the northeast gets more of those than sunny days. Or energy made from black flies and mosquitos, and they’d finally have a positive use :smiley:

48

Well the yellow on my wrist tattoo has faded more, but the green is pretty much the same as it always has been. I have been thinking of going and getting the yellow touched up lately … :smiley:

49

OK, they pay off in things other than dollars. Did I say I was measuring anything with dollars? When you’re talking about solar cells, the payoff is in energy, but they also have a cost that can be measured in energy, and they don’t pay off there.

50

Washington, DC, seems to have been successful with their small effort at forcing more “green” behavior using a plastic bag tax of five cents per bag. The first month, there were approximately 3 million plastic bags given out from food and grocery stores while the average the previous year was 22.5 million per month. It also raised $150,000 for the Anacostia River Cleanup Fund.

51

Yeah, but you can make up the loss on volume!

52

There are also cleaning and maintenance issues to contend with, which for a decentralized power source like solar will be rather higher than a comparable centralized power station. Techs will either have to travel a lot, or building maintenance will have to do it, and being less skilled at the job, will take longer to do so.

Though having no real moving parts unless there are mechanisms to track the sun will lower this by a fair amount.

Still, panels get dirty and have to be cleaned, break, wear out before design life and have to be replaced, circuits fail and have to be troubleshot and fixed.

Oh, and in an urban environment, especially rooftop installations, it means more loss of human life in the installation and maintenance of these things, being high up off the ground.

Soo.. Its not free. The maintenance costs for X amount of solar power is probably equivalent to any coal or nuclear plant that generates the same power. Theres just no fuel cost.