Just saw the article in this link, where a $1.45 billion loan guarantee is being put up by the US Government to support a 250-megawatt solar array in Arizona.

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/obama-outlines-2-billion-in-clean-energy-funds-2010-07-03?reflink=MW_news_stmp

I am not totally opposed to the idea.  But a better use of the money would have been to support a large wind project instead.  Why?

Because 250 MW of wind energy would cost about $500,000,000... or one-third the cost of this solar array.  For $1.45B, we coulda built 750MW of wind turbines in, say, Texas or a Great Plains state.  Or maybe some offshore monster turbines.

Wind power also creates LOTS of blue collar jobs, due to the heavy fabrication nature of wind towers.

If the government were putting up some $$$ towards research in solar energy, to make it become cheaper, I would be alot more supportive of this effort, because unlike wind power, today's solar energy is economically prohibitive.

I agree, with one caveat, though petroleum seems cheap, the expense of securing it is incredible.  The consensus among the legally sane is that we went into Iraq for oil's sake and we had to borrow billions every year we were there!
:o

And on the gripping hand, there was easy coin to be banked in TSLA's IPO last week (as long as you sold by the end of the first day or during the second day's surprise spike)... an IPO that probably wouldn't have happened had they not managed to secure a few hundred megabucks in government-backed loans.

It ain't capitalism, but it sure is fun!

And on the gripping hand, there was easy coin to be banked in TSLA's IPO last week (as long as you sold by the end of the first day or during the second day's surprise spike)... an IPO that probably wouldn't have happened had they not managed to secure a few hundred megabucks in government-backed loans.

It ain't capitalism, but it sure is fun!


So did you do okay?
???

Just saw the article in this link, where a $1.45 billion loan guarantee is being put up by the US Government to support a 250-megawatt solar array in Arizona.

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/obama-outlines-2-billion-in-clean-energy-funds-2010-07-03?reflink=MW_news_stmp

I am not totally opposed to the idea.  But a better use of the money would have been to support a large wind project instead.  Why?

Because 250 MW of wind energy would cost about $500,000,000... or one-third the cost of this solar array.  For $1.45B, we coulda built 750MW of wind turbines in, say, Texas or a Great Plains state.  Or maybe some offshore monster turbines.

Wind power also creates LOTS of blue collar jobs, due to the heavy fabrication nature of wind towers.

If the government were putting up some $$$ towards research in solar energy, to make it become cheaper, I would be alot more supportive of this effort, because unlike wind power, today's solar energy is economically prohibitive.




no it wouldn't be a better use.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/energy/debunking-myths-about-nuclear-fuel-coal-wind-solar-9

There are now solar cells with a one year payback on costs.  Wind is controversial thanks to the noise issues and the fact that people don't want them in locations where they're visible for miles.

I'd much rather see development of thin film solar cells, that can be installed on many roofs instead of these gigantic concentrated farms.  Push research into letting me cut my own energy costs by installing on my own roof instead of letting some corporation reap all the benefits. 

no it wouldn't be a better use.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/energy/debunking-myths-about-nuclear-fuel-coal-wind-solar-9

There are now solar cells with a one year payback on costs.  Wind is controversial thanks to the noise issues and the fact that people don't want them in locations where they're visible for miles.

I'd much rather see development of thin film solar cells, that can be installed on many roofs instead of these gigantic concentrated farms.  Push research into letting me cut my own energy costs by installing on my own roof instead of letting some corporation reap all the benefits. 


My daughter and son-in-law have a 3 or 4 year old solar array near San Bernadino, and not only has it paid for itself, it the turn off the pool heater (which they usually do, they wind up selling electricity to the power company.  Sweet deal.  I'd install one here in VT but our house is shaded on the south side by a hugh maple and a church taller than the house.  Buut for many Vermonters, solar can pay even given our long winters.  The break evan point is longer than in CA, but reachable.

Colorless green ideas furiously asleep

So did you do okay?
???


It was fun to watch, but I had/have no position in TSLA.  I'll buy some under $10 (which I think it'll see in a few months) for the lulz, though.  Worst that could happen is it goes to zero.  Best that could happen is it becomes the next Ford Motor Company.  Risk-reward at $20 isn't that great.  Risk-reward at $10 is 50/50.  Risk-reward at $5 is pretty damn good. 

FWIW, if I had bought on the morning of the IPO, I'd have sold by the day's end, and missed out on the extra $5 that it popped on the day after. But at least I didn't chase it at $25+

It was fun to watch, but I had/have no position in TSLA.  I'll buy some under $10 (which I think it'll see in a few months) for the lulz, though.  Worst that could happen is it goes to zero.  Best that could happen is it becomes the next Ford Motor Company.  Risk-reward at $20 isn't that great.  Risk-reward at $10 is 50/50.  Risk-reward at $5 is pretty damn good. 

FWIW, if I had bought on the morning of the IPO, I'd have sold by the day's end, and missed out on the extra $5 that it popped on the day after. But at least I didn't chase it at $25+


I remember when Enron was selling for $0.08 a share.  Enron had a green energy idea; their idea was to pocket as much of the green stuff  as possible!
:D

no it wouldn't be a better use.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/energy/debunking-myths-about-nuclear-fuel-coal-wind-solar-9

There are now solar cells with a one year payback on costs.  Wind is controversial thanks to the noise issues and the fact that people don't want them in locations where they're visible for miles.

I'd much rather see development of thin film solar cells, that can be installed on many roofs instead of these gigantic concentrated farms.  Push research into letting me cut my own energy costs by installing on my own roof instead of letting some corporation reap all the benefits. 



Like I said, spending fed $$$ on research for lower-cost solar power I support.  But today's commercial technology for solar is NOT cost effective and so economics works completely against the huge solar project.  You don't need to take my word on this... the power output of the project, and its cost, already demonstrate its uneconomical status.

Besides, people are gonna get all up in arms when they find out that those solar arrays get hotter than hell, and birds don;t hold up too well when they perch on 'em.

Low-cost thin-film research and production technology for the future?  HECK YEAH, invest in research there.  But it ain't there yet in any practical volume, and the solar project that launched this thread is an expensive boondoggle.  If the lower-cost thin-film technology IS available (and I am proven wrong) then this project (the big solar job in Arizona) CERTAINLY should not be funded.

"Cost effective" is a relative phenomenon.  In this case, seems to me that the cost of conventional electricity can only go up.  Even nuclear will get more expensive as, first, millions will need to be invested to keep aging plants (like Vermont Yankee) functioning safely, and billions to build new ones, and then there is the rising cost of the fuel itself, and of disposing of the spent fuel, a problem that has yet to be solved.  So what might seem to be less than cost effective today will look like a bargain tomorrow.  And my son-in-law's solar IS cost effective today (see above)

By the way, predictions are that the price of uranium will go up significantly since existing supply is being exhausted, demand is increasing, and production is lagging.

Like I said, spending fed $$$ on research for lower-cost solar power I support.  But today's commercial technology for solar is NOT cost effective and so economics works completely against the huge solar project.  You don't need to take my word on this... the power output of the project, and its cost, already demonstrate its uneconomical status.

Besides, people are gonna get all up in arms when they find out that those solar arrays get hotter than hell, and birds don;t hold up too well when they perch on 'em.

Low-cost thin-film research and production technology for the future?  HECK YEAH, invest in research there.  But it ain't there yet in any practical volume, and the solar project that launched this thread is an expensive boondoggle.   If the lower-cost thin-film technology IS available (and I am proven wrong) then this project (the big solar job in Arizona) CERTAINLY should not be funded.


Solar is not yet cost effective.  I could have made that statement 35 years ago without fear of controversy, as I can today!  Think of solar as a possible Even Steven for the Southwest.  You sell us your solar storage and we can talk about you paying the rest of the country back for all that water you desert dillweeds have been draining from the rest of the country!
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/15/toothy4.gif