0
0

So this is that Utopian solar energy we've heard so much about?


 invite response                
2011 Nov 9, 7:07am   31,732 views  48 comments

by TPB   ➕follow (0)   💰tip   ignore  

The U.S. Commerce Department said Wednesday that it would investigate allegations that Chinese solar cell manufacturers are illegally "dumping" their products on the American market at excessively cheap prices.

A group of American manufacturers led by SolarWorld Industries America argued in a complaint last month that Chinese firms are offering solar cells at prices well below what it costs to make and ship them thanks to subsidies from the Chinese government. The artificially low prices, the complaint claims, are pushing American manufacturers out of the industry.

It's a wash, our Government keeps Oil artificially high, so their back door cronies can sell their artificially high priced solar panels... Or not, of course they may just pocket the money and laugh at us schmucko tax payers for Voting in the assholes that gave them 50 billion.

That's it, blame the Chinese, I think China has done more to fuck up Obama's administration than that George W. Bush fella I keep hearing about. Is this administration responsible for anything?

I thought cheap affordable alternative energy, is was the main objective here?

I guess not! We're all paying 50-60% more in gas prices so the Liberals can get their Pimp hand on, they don't like when China goes fucking with their money. Pass the ky any one is better than this.

#politics

Comments 1 - 40 of 48       Last »     Search these comments

1   TPB   2011 Nov 9, 7:14am  

I sure would like to see this cheap made in China Solar panels they are talking about. Google says they are as unaffordable as ever. Obama, what were you thinking?

2   EBGuy   2011 Nov 9, 7:56am  

ToT, how much is your monthly electric bill?

3   HousingWatcher   2011 Nov 9, 11:35am  

Where are these cheap solar panels? I will buy some tomorrow. How can I buy them? I will load them into the trunk of my minivan first thing tomorrow morning.

4   marcus   2011 Nov 9, 11:47am  

The GOP says

It's a wash, our Government keeps Oil artificially high

Gosh. We are far more powerful than I ever realized. We keep the price high for the entire planet !

This is in pence but you can easily see that everyone in the world pays more than we do.
http://www.byebyeblighty.com/1/2010-petrol-prices-international-comparisons/

OR maybe this is better:
http://www.staveleyhead.co.uk/utilities/petrol-prices/

WHy don't we use all of our military power to force the price as low as it can go, and then the world should use all the oil up as fast as possible. To hell with the people with the oil under their land, if they think supply and demand should be a factor.

And if we use all the oil up before we have other cheap forms of energy, fuck it. I'll be gone by then anyway.

5   HousingWatcher   2011 Nov 9, 11:49am  

The cheapest solar panels you can buy today are Westinghouse panels for $9,200. You get 13 panels for that price.

http://www.lowes.com/pd_359833-15399-902-11005-013_?PL=1&productId=3429034

6   nope   2011 Nov 9, 1:27pm  

The GOP says

I thought cheap affordable alternative energy, is was the main objective here?

You don't understand how technology works, do you?

I'll break it down for you:

1. Fundamental research discovers something useful.

2. Additional research and prototyping figures out how to make something useful from the research.

3. Early products are brought to market. They are rarely cost effective relative to alternatives. Do you know what the first Automobiles cost? Or mechanical looms?

4. More investment takes place, producing improvements to the technology and bringing down costs.

5. Eventually the cost of the technology falls below the thing it replaces and it becomes widely adopted.

Solar panels are just now crossing the cost effective threshold for home use. It'll probably be at least another decade before it starts to beat out nuclear and coal from a cost per watt perspective.

7   TPB   2011 Nov 9, 11:12pm  

marcus says

And if we use all the oil up before we have other cheap forms of energy, fuck it. I'll be gone by then anyway.

Oh well your talking about conservation, see that's the responsible thing to do. What is driving high Oil prices is not Conservation or even supply.

It's just pure greed, our energy policy could give two shits, if GW Bush was to drink the last drop of Oil next year, using a Texas sized drinking straw.

If you think our greed, on Oil and other commodities doest effect the rest of the world, I've got a stiff Kadafi that says other wise.

8   TPB   2011 Nov 9, 11:18pm  

Kevin says

I'll break it down for you:

I'll break it down for you and taaaalllllkkkk real slllllllloooowww to.

Why should China care we still have our pants around our ankles making a constitutional, according to the article(Though nobody can seem to confirm) claims, that China is dumping CHEAP Solar panels NOW. All of that other shit you're talking doesn't make sense in the context of this thread.
If anything your dumb retort proves even more that the Greenies are shoving a FIXED industry up our Asses, regardless if we can see past the bullshit, or if we even have alternative cheaper panel sources from China.

Your retort is, well we've conned American tax payers into paying a premium, and we've got this fantasy that the technology will be 10X more expensive for years to come. Even if China does have them cheaper.

Oh and I forgot you greenies like to see this too.

FAIL!!!!

9   EightBall   2011 Nov 9, 11:54pm  

There are a number of commercial (for lack of a better word) solar panel get ups around the country. I hope we cross the cost barrier soon for more wide deployment. We still need power at night and/or a way to store energy (pumping it uphill works - not sexy but gravity is an easy and safe way to store energy) but at least this once-pie-in-the-sky technology is coming to fruition. We still need coal-fired electric plants for the foreseeable future, though.

I'm no Greenie unless you include my desire for greenbacks.

10   corntrollio   2011 Nov 10, 8:09am  

The GOP says

our Government keeps Oil artificially high

Evidence please? This is nonsense. The world economy determines oil prices. If the oil price was higher elsewhere in the world, the domestic oil production would be sold abroad until the cost was equal here.

The rest of your rant, as usual, is incomprehensible. I'm not sure why you spend so much time talking about things you know little about.

11   TPB   2011 Nov 10, 9:22am  

corntrollio says

The world economy determines oil prices.

and because the world's going trough a GDP boom right now RIGHT?
(wide eyes and stupid look on face)

12   nope   2011 Nov 10, 2:00pm  

The GOP says

Why should China care we still have our pants around our ankles making a constitutional, according to the article(Though nobody can seem to confirm) claims, that China is dumping CHEAP Solar panels NOW.

You claimed that the point is cheap energy. What China is doing is not producing cheap energy, they're subsidizing an industry in order to ensure that foreign competition can not exist. It's certainly not the first time either.

You'll never get cheap affordable energy if you drive the industry out of existence.

13   TPB   2011 Nov 10, 11:30pm  

Well if your friendly neighborhood president gives some random solar energy 50 billion and that company fails, then on the best scenario i.e. there was no fraud or cronyism, then it never was a viable doomed to drive its self out of existence.

That's best scenario though, I'm still glued to the bootube to see what becomes of the scofflaw in the Whitehouse ignoring a congressional subpena on paper work and emails, hammering out the details, to ensure that it indeed was lost money due to it being a dead impossible industry even with a 50 billion infusion.

Good news for the greenies is Obama is a crooked son of a Bitch, and the deal was wrought with deceit and fraud, that would give the greenies a mulligan, and we would have to give it one more shot before we make final decision.

It's not like we ever took it serious, why should China take us serious. IF they want to give away solar panels for cheaper than they can make it,(according to the American greenies) then why should you care.

14   marcus   2011 Nov 10, 11:57pm  

50 billion ? Try .5 billion.

You guys work overtime trying to find something to pin on Obama. The half billion dollar federal loan may have been a mistake, but we know the intent behind it. Hardly criminal.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/solar-is-getting-cheaper-but-how-far-can-it-go/2011/11/07/gIQAuXXuvM_blog.html?wprss=ezra-klein

15   edvard2   2011 Nov 11, 12:22am  

The truth of the matter is the solar panels and solar technology ARE drastically cheaper than it was even in the recent past. That and LEDs. Go to any store. You can buy solar yard lights for $15 for a pack of 10 of the suckers. LED flashlights are like $5. Solar panels used to cost on the order of 10's of thousands of dollars each. Now they're a fraction of that cost and growing cheaper by the day.

This isn't a "greenies" versus "drill baby drill!" argument. Its a conversation about technology and its increasingly availability to the masses. Solar technology, like all other forms of technology is improving and growing cheaper.

Either way it pisses me off that somehow ANYTHING that doesn't run on coal, gas, or oil is somehow viewed by folks on the right as some sort of liberal conspiracy. Stupid given that if you look back to the 1890's one of the biggest concern for any major metro in the US wasn't pollution from smokestacks but the MASSIVE mounds of horse crap. Horses were for the day seen as gross polluters and there were endless debates about how to deal with the issue. Well- suddenly gas powered cars came along. A miracle! They didn't shit all over the place! They were clean! Amazing. Yet there was a lot of people against these "Newfangled things". Yet now they're seen as old hat. The same is happening today. There are other ways to run a car or light up a lamp. Technology is good. Technology moves forward because progress cannot be uninvented. Otherwise if those who were against invention and innovation had their way we would still be in caves.

16   EightBall   2011 Nov 11, 12:37am  

edvard2 says

This isn't a "greenies" versus "drill baby drill!" argument.

Unfortunately, it is. The green-at-any-cost is just as ludicrous as drill baby drill.

17   TPB   2011 Nov 11, 12:44am  

edvard2 says

This isn't a "greenies" versus "drill baby drill!" argument.

No it's not, the two aren't mutually exclusive, it's the R & D "us against them" in Washington that married to two disconnected concepts to keep a monetized grip on both sectors.

What's wrong with letting Green technologies grow on its own accord unabated by the Government or regulation. In Peru you can buy a 1996 Honda Civic for about $1200 and then take it to a Mom and Pops shop that specializes in Natural Gas conversions, and have it installed for another $1200. And Peru is serious about energy, as you will find Natural Gas in Most gas stations.

The only regulation involved is, the Gas station has to have trained people to gas the vehicles. You pull up pop the hood,(where the noozle is) and all of the passengers have to exit the car and stand in a waiting area, for safety measure.

For $3.00 the guy said he can drive 300 miles.

That scenario is impossible in this country. For very greedy greedy reasons, and reasons you Greenies FAIL to call your Liberal representatives out on. They fuck the Green/Alternate energy movement at every turn, and the Greenies still rally around them blaming G. W. Bush and the like.

And now the Chinese apparently.

Let me know how this movie ends will ya?

18   edvard2   2011 Nov 11, 1:02am  

So the argument is that government shouldn't be involved with the development in technology and so forth. If that's the case its worth looking at it from a historical perspective. Good examples include the Manhattan project and the advent of military computers use to calculate artillery firing tables, both of these programs having taken place in the 1940's. At the time the Manhattan project as a whole was the single largest industrial development in history-larger than the entire US auto and electronics manufacturing industries combined. The end result was the development of numerous private industries such as advanced electronics, computers, and technology as well as the development of nuclear power, which has been for most of its existence been viewed as a "green" technology. Its a worthy argument to claim that without the US military places like Silicon Valley simply wouldn't exist and that many of the technologies we take for granted, such as the internet for example- might also not exist or at the very least be far less developed and far less further along today.

The argument that government should stay out of industry is a compelling one but at least in this country the government has always been involved and is often a catalyst for technological development.

19   EightBall   2011 Nov 11, 1:28am  

edvard2 says

which has been for most of its existence been viewed as a "green" technology.

Unless you are a greenie, then it isn't green.

20   TPB   2011 Nov 11, 2:11am  

Don't lecture us about over priced greenie cars that gets worse gas mileage than a K-Car from the 80's.

1981
K-Car gas mileage rated by the EPA at 26 mpg city, 41 mpg highway
*Cheapest family car available in the US, in fact it was the low priced stigma that killed the car.

2012
The Prius V gets an estimated 44 mpg in city driving and 40 mpg on the highway.
*The most expensive non luxury car available, and the Green stigma keeps price artificially high.

21   New Renter   2011 Nov 11, 2:18am  

My favorite green energy - NUCLEAR!!!

It works at night, in bad weather, when the wind doesn't blow and when the ocean is still. The problems to making it safe are NOT technical they are purely political. My father was a nuclear engineer who knew a few things about the industry. He designed sub reactors, breeder reactors light and heavy water reactors. He convinced me that safety was not a technical impossibility but a political one. Yes reactors are expensive but they don't have to be THAT expensive.

As for the waste if Yucca mountain is not going to happen there is another potential solution: sub seabed disposal. This still needs some research but the concept is simple - either drop the waste in special containers off a ship in the middle of the ocean. The containers hit the the bottom of the ocean floor and imbed themselves under the muck. They can sit there undisturbed for thousands or millions of years. In the unlikely situation were a container were to break the muck has been shown to chemically bind the waste. Heck even if it were to leech out it'd still be in the bottom of the ocean under 3 miles or more of water. By the time it got to us it'd be so dilute as to be background.

From what I understand this was looked into in the 1980s but all the funding was canceled in favor of Yucca mountain. We then signed a treaty banning this kind of disposal to ensure funding for Yucca mountain would be protected. This treaty is up for renewal in 2014. I'd like to see sub seabed disposal reexamined at the very least. I do not believe solar wind or any combination of non-nuclear alternative energy will meet this country's electrical needs by a long shot. We need nuclear and we need it now.

22   MattBayArea   2011 Nov 11, 2:58am  

Drop it into a sea floor rift, by the time it's spewed up by a volcano it will be non-radioactive! Actually, it probably won't - the half-lives of some of these isotopes are greater than the whole-life of the earth's crust, so to speak. That is, if you drop something radioactive into a sea floor rift - or just on the sea floor - it eventually subducts and is spewed back up in the form of a volcano some 500 million years later. I guess it depends upon which isotope is at the end of the power-generation process, and I don't know enough about this to comment, aside from saying that for some isotopes (ie some plutonium used in weapons, a different topic I know but perhaps noteworthy) the radioactive half-life is greater than 500 million years.

I won't claim to be certain about my data but I just did a few quick googles to check my memory and it seems about right - again I'm not sure which isotopes we'd be talking about and that's the crux of the matter.

If true, it may be best to:
1) Focus on nuclear power generation that does not leave radioactive waste, ie recycle the waste into fuel

or

2) Limit our use to processes that result in short lived isotopes

or

3) Accept permanent stewardship of the waste - no dumping in the ocean

As for solar being insufficient, you're just flat out wrong. There's tons more energy than we need coming down and in terms of efficiency (on either end - collection of or use of energy) we can go much further.

(Typed from a solar keyboard - that has never seen the sun yet remains at full charge simply from indoor lighting. Can't wait for Logitech to release a solar wireless mouse to go with it,and headphones!)

All that said I'm not against nuclear!

23   edvard2   2011 Nov 11, 3:09am  

The GOP says

Don't lecture us about over priced greenie cars that gets worse gas mileage than a K-Car from the 80's.

Don't have to lecture, just mention the FACTS.

1981
K-Car gas mileage rated by the EPA at 26 mpg city, 41 mpg highway
*Cheapest family car available in the US, in fact it was the low priced stigma that killed the car.

2012
The Prius V gets an estimated 44 mpg in city driving and 40 mpg on the highway.
*The most expensive non luxury car available, and the Green stigma keeps price artificially high.

Perhaps could have been that the K car was a total POS, not that it was low priced. There are PLENTY of small fuel efficient cars like the Ford Fiesta, Chevy Cruze, and Toyota Yaris that are selling well, get over 40MPG, and are all under 20k. They're selling well because they're good cars, not total crap.

Let's see... The Prius will cost you out the door around $24,000. Its in the same class as a Ford Fusion, which also costs about the same amount. The prius is a medium sized passenger car and thus costs exactly the same as any other equivalent medium sized car. How exactly is it overpriced? Its costs he SAME. Also- I can personally tell you from actual hands-on experience that our 10+ year old prius gets 48-50MPG, all day, any day, regardless of traffic, speed, freeway, or back country roads.

24   EightBall   2011 Nov 11, 3:24am  

Matt.BayArea says

If true, it may be best to:

I think you forgot about building a space elevator and then flinging it into the sun. The seems pretty permanent.

25   MattBayArea   2011 Nov 11, 3:32am  

PersainCAT says

Yup becasue there are hard physical limit on how efficient solar/wind/hydro power can be and we are actually reaching those physical limitations. u cant alter physics just because u throw money at it.

Source, regarding solar? Not trying to claim you're wrong, but I briefly looked and can't find one.

And, do you mean the limits of our raw technology or the applied technology (ie the lab vs the store)?

Yes, it's not feasible to power the world with 10% efficient cheap solar panels of today. If, however, we could use already-existing technologies (currently cost-prohibited, limited by exotic materials) from lab demonstrations and apply them to large scales (every building, car, sun-exposed surface not growing plants or used for something else), then powering the world at around 60-70% efficiency does not seem so unfeasible. Not to say this is the best solution, or even feasible at present.

26   corntrollio   2011 Nov 11, 3:43am  

The GOP says

and because the world's going trough a GDP boom right now

Look, if you don't understand the oil market, don't pretend to, is all I'm trying to say. Oil prices are down from the peak, sure.

EightBall says

The green-at-any-cost

Nice strawman, but not particularly helpful. We are nowhere near this threshold under current policy.

The GOP says

1981
K-Car gas mileage rated by the EPA at 26 mpg city, 41 mpg highway
*Cheapest family car available in the US, in fact it was the low priced stigma that killed the car.

I keep having to correct people on cars here:

a) it wasn't the cheapest family car available in the US, the Reliant had a base price of $5880, although good luck finding base models early on, most Reliants cost much more at first. You could buy a Chevette for under 5 grand in the mid to late 80s after GM cut prices, and a 4-door Chevette, which also had similar gas mileage, went for $4418 in 1980, not sure about 1981: easy to find documentation: http://history.gmheritagecenter.com/wiki/index.php/1975,_Chevrolet_Turns_to_Opel_for_the_New_Fuel-Saving_Chevette. GM sold well over 400,000 Chevettes in 1981 vs. Chrysler selling just over 300,000 Reliants and Aries (no LeBaron on the K-platform until 1982 -- it was still an M-platform in 1981, which was rear-drive and much bigger).

b) you can't compare EPA mileage from 1981 to now anyway. They changed the formula since then. It would likely be at least 4-5 lower on the highway number, in which case it would match up well with a modern Corolla (built in America) and get beaten by a modern Ford Focus which is 28/38 with a 160 hp 2.0L engine even as a PZEV and can get far higher than that in Euro-spec (around 60 mpg highway)

c) the K-Car mileage you're quoting is for a carburated 84 hp engine with a manual transmission (0-60 in 12.2 for a 1982 2.2L manual according to C&D), with no air conditioning or few safety features. We could easily go back to this primitive state and raise gas mileage that way. You couldn't even roll down the rear windows in a 1981 model!

The car companies have always been capable of higher mileage. They just refused because it would raise the price of cars. They've been saying this for years in internal memos and internal meetings. Some of these models are available in Europe and other places, but North American models tend to have bigger engines and lower gas mileage.

Also, you picked the Prius V in order to be biased. A regular ol' Prius gets higher than that -- 2011 has EPA (under the revised numbers) estimate of 51 city/48 highway.

edvard2 says

Let's see... The Prius will cost you out the door around $24,000. Its in the same class as a Ford Fusion, which also costs about the same amount. The prius is a medium sized passenger car and thus costs exactly the same as any other equivalent medium sized car.

The Fusion feels much bigger to me, although I've only driven either of these cars as a rental. The Fusion Hybrid gets pretty good mileage, although not as high as the Prius, partly because it's not as optimized for maximum fuel efficiency (power still gets a little bit of a nod).

27   zzyzzx   2011 Nov 11, 3:54am  

HousingWatcher says

The cheapest solar panels you can buy today are Westinghouse panels for $9,200. You get 13 panels for that price.

http://www.lowes.com/pd_359833-15399-902-11005-013_?PL=1&productId=3429034

Nice! Never saw that one before. Finally a decent DIY kit.

28   edvard2   2011 Nov 11, 3:56am  

The OLD Prius is pretty small but the 2nd generation was "Super-sized" for the NA markets. I went and looked at one recently and they're a pretty big car. Its definitely not a compact, small, econo-car that people seem to incorrectly claim it is. Its more like a Camry.

As far as fuel economy, well if we are really careful with ours and drive cautiously, feather the gas and so on we've gotten as high as 53MPG. The newer ones are apparently better.

What's also interesting is that some of the new cars with conventional engines are getting really good economy. Some are using direct-injection gas engines that have higher compression. So its sort of like a gas engine that behaves partially like a diesel. Apparently the Cruze Eco can get upwards of 45MPG or more, which is pretty compelling to me.

Believe it or not I used to be one of those " Those stupid Hippie priuses!" kind of guys... until we inherited ours. After having owned one for a long time they're pretty normal cars that do what they say they do- which is get pretty good fuel economy. The biggest concern was the main battery and how long it might last and how much it would cost. Well ours is over 10 years old so far and apparently the batteries last a pretty long time, as in anywhere from 150,000-200,000 miles. There's a cottage industry of re-manufacturing the batteries and a replacement unit can be had for around $2,000. On our car it would take maybe a few hours to replace it since its just stuck under the back seat, trunk area and screwed down and plugged in with some big interlocking plugs. Ours is a 1st generation prius and its done just fine. Being a sort of engine/car geek I've been impressed with it so far, that something as complicated as it is can run reliably for years and years and that the battery has held up for as long as it has.

29   corntrollio   2011 Nov 11, 5:05am  

edvard2 says

Believe it or not I used to be one of those " Those stupid Hippie priuses!" kind of guys... until we inherited ours. After having owned one for a long time they're pretty normal cars that do what they say they do- which is get pretty good fuel economy. The biggest concern was the main battery and how long it might last and how much it would cost. Well ours is over 10 years old so far and apparently the batteries last a pretty long time, as in anywhere from 150,000-200,000 miles.

I have friends with the 1st gen, and their batteries didn't last nearly that long. Also, they've had to replace other expensive pieces of the drivetrain too. Still, it's not that much different from replacing a transmission, probably.

I actually didn't like the way the Prius felt while driving, but it's obviously not designed to be a performance car. But that's a personal preference issue -- rear drive cars (or AWD) with horsepower are more my style. :)

edvard2 says

The OLD Prius is pretty small but the 2nd generation was "Super-sized" for the NA markets. I went and looked at one recently and they're a pretty big car.

Yeah, I drove a 2nd gen. It was big inside, but the Fusion still felt bigger. Having a hatchback makes it easier to fit certain cargo, however, I'd imagine.

edvard2 says

What's also interesting is that some of the new cars with conventional engines are getting really good economy. Some are using direct-injection gas engines that have higher compression. So its sort of like a gas engine that behaves partially like a diesel. Apparently the Cruze Eco can get upwards of 45MPG or more, which is pretty compelling to me.

Yes, we're only now seeing some of the stuff that has been available in Europe or Japan for ages, even among Fords in Europe, as I mentioned above. I drove a rented Ford Mondeo in Europe years ago and got 40 mpg. The Mondeo is similar to the Fusion here, and was the Ford Contour sold in the 90s was a Mondeo basically. That was with mixed driving (and rarely ever on open highway), and it was a diesel.

If you are interested in upcoming gas engine technology, look up HCCI. Even more like a diesel, and higher economy.

30   edvard2   2011 Nov 11, 6:00am  

I haven't actually met anyone that has had the main battery fail in a Prius yet but it does happen. I also live in Cali where the weather is easier on them. Basically if the one in ours fails I'll get a re-manufactured unit. The early priuses are indeed pricey in regards to drivetrain components because they didn't build near as many of them and the 2nd generation version is drastically different and more common. The key is maintenance and I'm willing to be most who own these know diddly-squat about em'. For example it has 2 separate cooling systems, one for the engine and one for the inverter that converts the 200+ volt main battery power into something like I believe 600 volts? can't recall. But its crucial that coolant is clean and flows through the inverter or it will fry itself. I change mine every 60,000 miles. Most I know who own one of these have no clue about that. Also- the transaxle ( doesn't have a transmission) needs to have the lubricant changed also. I do this, also every 60,000 miles. Its easy enough to do but I bet a lot of people don't.

I remember the first time I changed the plugs. The guy at the parts counter said I was the only person who had ever asked for spark plugs... for a Prius.

31   corntrollio   2011 Nov 11, 6:12am  

edvard2 says

The key is maintenance and I'm willing to be most who own these know diddly-squat about em'. For example it has 2 separate cooling systems, one for the engine and one for the inverter that converts the 200+ volt main battery power into something like I believe 600 volts? can't recall. But its crucial that coolant is clean and flows through the inverter or it will fry itself. I change mine every 60,000 miles. Most I know who own one of these have no clue about that. Also- the transaxle ( doesn't have a transmission) needs to have the lubricant changed also. I do this, also every 60,000 miles. Its easy enough to do but I bet a lot of people don't.

Yes, that'd be my guess too. From what I understand, a decent number of people have to replace their inverters, probably at least partly because of what you said. A lot of people with all kinds of cars are lax with maintenance and then surprised when something happens...

32   HousingWatcher   2011 Nov 11, 6:36am  

zzyzzx says

Nice! Never saw that one before. Finally a decent DIY kit.

They literally just came out a few weeks ago. You would still need to have the solar panels connected by a licensed electrician even if you go the DIY route.

33   edvard2   2011 Nov 11, 6:53am  

corntrollio says

Yes, that'd be my guess too. From what I understand, a decent number of people have to replace their inverters, probably at least partly because of what you said. A lot of people with all kinds of cars are lax with maintenance and then surprised when something happens...

Exactly. The problem is that people are convinced that today's cars are too complicated. get a shop manual and any car is repairable- even hybrids. You just need to be aware of things like how to repair things safely and correctly. That and having proper tools helps. I have a 16 year old truck and a 50+ year old car and neither has been in the shop under my ownership because I can work on them. I am very particular about maintenance like changing the oil, coolant, adjusting points ( old car) and so on. As a result the two older vehicles have well past 200,000 miles and the prius is at 150,000.

...On the other hand my brother treats his car like crap and somehow its made it to 300,000 miles.

34   corntrollio   2011 Nov 11, 7:13am  

edvard2 says

Exactly. The problem is that people are convinced that today's cars are too complicated. get a shop manual and any car is repairable- even hybrids. You just need to be aware of things like how to repair things safely and correctly. That and having proper tools helps. I have a 16 year old truck and a 50+ year old car and neither has been in the shop under my ownership because I can work on them. I am very particular about maintenance like changing the oil, coolant, adjusting points ( old car) and so on. As a result the two older vehicles have well past 200,000 miles and the prius is at 150,000.

I'm not nearly as handy as you (despite purchasing shop manuals), but have always had a good mechanic who doesn't rip me off. Never really been a problem to hit 200K, although sometimes transmissions will die by then. Even the non-routine maintenance was cheaper than buying another car.

One thing I've noticed because of this economic downturn is that many more people are deferring vehicle maintenance. I can literally hear it when I drive with a window down, e.g. ticking, squeaking, screeching, etc. I've almost wondered if I should try to tell them what's wrong with their car ("dude, put some oil in your car!"), but they'd probably think I was trying to rob them or ask them for money or something.

35   edvard2   2011 Nov 11, 7:22am  

Its amazing how bad people are with maintenance. I had a housemate who had a Ford Taurus. The thing for some reason ate brake pads. He let the pads wear all the way down and then the metal backing plate began to gouge the rotor. He asked me to take a look at it and the rotor was completely ruined. I also can't count how many times I've looked at a friend's engine and found the oil, coolant, transmission fluid, or all three of those either at the bottom of the dip stick/reservoir tank or almost totally empty. When you consider that today's cars seem to go for 200k no problem its amazing they made it that long given the average person's lack of ability when it comes to maintenance.

36   corntrollio   2011 Nov 11, 7:34am  

edvard2 says

He let the pads wear all the way down and then the metal backing plate began to gouge the rotor. He asked me to take a look at it and the rotor was completely ruined.

It's actually hard to do that unintentionally. Generally speaking, you will hear ridiculously loud grinding when the pad wears down and the backing plate is hitting the rotor. Then you say, "oh crap, I need to take the car in." Duh.

They probably tell the mechanic, "oh yeah, for the last few weeks, it's been making this loud grinding sound when I hit the brakes. It still seemed to be stopping fine, well maybe a little grabby, but will you check it out?"

Even if you took it to the shop the next day, you probably wouldn't screw up the rotor too bad...

edvard2 says

I also can't count how many times I've looked at a friend's engine and found the oil, coolant, transmission fluid, or all three of those either at the bottom of the dip stick/reservoir tank or almost totally empty.

Ditto. Tons of people I know with CELs on, and not all of them have left their gas cap off. Some of the CEL issues can probably lower your gas mileage, so you'd probably save money by fixing it.

37   New Renter   2011 Nov 12, 12:24pm  

Matt.BayArea says

Drop it into a sea floor rift, by the time it's spewed up by a volcano it will be non-radioactive! Actually, it probably won't - the half-lives of some of these isotopes are greater than the whole-life of the earth's crust, so to speak. That is, if you drop something radioactive into a sea floor rift - or just on the sea floor - it eventually subducts and is spewed back up in the form of a volcano some 500 million years later. I guess it depends upon which isotope is at the end of the power-generation process, and I don't know enough about this to comment, aside from saying that for some isotopes (ie some plutonium used in weapons, a different topic I know but perhaps noteworthy) the radioactive half-life is greater than 500 million years.

And that's a problem why?

Couple of reasons why not to care. Dilution and time. Sure the waste is still radioactive but it'd be so dilute as to be safer than the concrete in your house or even a banana. The more obvious reason is time.

Ever hear of the Oklo reactors? Back about 2B years ago the ratio of U325 to 238 was about 3%, enough to support NATURAL fission, just add water! The waste generated by those natural reactors is still there. Sounds bad but the fact it is still there after two billion years should give you some confidence in natures ability to contain even high level nuclear waste.

I agree I'd rather recycle the waste into fuel. Personally I support the continued development of breeder reactors. Unfortunately critics rightly point out the fuel can easily be converted to weapons. That makes the case for such reactors harder to sell to the public. Lots of other reactor designs though.

And don't get me wrong, I'm not against solar but IMO it's a VERY limited option. Yes lots of energy falls to earth from the sun. The problem is harnessing that energy efficiently. As I pointed out before it is very inconsistent as cloud covered Germany is finally realizing. The irony is they trashed their nuclear program in favor of solar. Now Germany is forced to buy power from France which generates 80% of its power from - you guessed it - our friend the atom.

38   MattBayArea   2011 Nov 14, 3:22am  

Good point about the dilution, New Renter!

I'm still very wary of the idea of dumping instead of stewarding the waste. Dumping is just so much harder to undo - if we store the waste, we can deal with it in a few hundred years when we're weaning ourselves off of current nuclear power technologies and utilizing something better (sustainable nuclear reactions, perhaps, or solar, or something else).

Basically it just seems to me like a big gamble. On the other hand, neither I nor my great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great grandchildren will be around to have to worry about it. I *do* have to deal with the effects of our current carbon-based energy economy. I hate smoggy days.

39   MattBayArea   2011 Nov 14, 3:27am  

Perhaps Solyndra got the federal money based upon a promise to manufacture here? I would sure hope so - as bad of a deal as that whole thing seems like, it'd be even worse if we gave loans for a company to outsource solar panel production to China. I want them produced here for national security purposes (yes, I know we get the rare metals from China ... today ... but that is changing, fortunately).

Personally I would be happy if we nationalized Solyndra and funded it sufficiently for costs to be competitive. This is what China is doing, right? Energy generation is just too important to outsource and it's not feasible to get enough oil from our own land ... and while coal is plentiful the clean coal technologies are not sufficient for protecting our resources (yet). And even if they were, we should have diverse energy sources.

I just don't get why our 'patriotic' politicians (notice I am not blaming one party) do not get behind these ideas. Having a LOCAL, redundant, diverse, and sustainable approach to energy seems like the #1 or #2 priority for national security. It's always drill for more oil, a terrible solution imo.

40   corntrollio   2011 Nov 14, 3:35am  

shrekgrinch says

Why, didn't Solyndra start making solar cells in China for export after taking all the crony money from the Feds to build that Potemkin manufacturing plant in Fremont, CA?

Nonsense question. Section 1705 requires US facilities:

https://lpo.energy.gov/?page_id=41

Under Section 1705, an Eligible Project is a renewable energy systems project, electric power transmission systems project or leading edge biofuels project that:
Is located in the U.S.;
Commences construction on or before September 30, 2011;
Meets Davis Bacon requirements; and
Meets all applicable requirements of the Recovery Act.

The US government has provided something like $1.4B in loans to solar, whereas China has provided something greater than $40B.

Comments 1 - 40 of 48       Last »     Search these comments

Please register to comment:

api   best comments   contact   latest images   memes   one year ago   random   suggestions