Is There an Energy Conspiracy? Where is the SOLAR power?

reply to post by boncho


Thank you for sharing! Informative.

Take care,

Ascension211

Originally posted by boncho
Solar for the most part doesn't give a good EROI (Energy return on energy invested).

img.abovetopsecret.com...

Also, the capital returns are not the same as oil, coal and other energy sources.

I find your EROI chart laughable. I wonder who put it out and who their partners are. I believe they must have some agenda. I notice that list does not include geothermal. I notice that list does not break down how they arrived at their obviously bias conclusions. They don't say what materials were used, how much they cost, cost of installation or conditions under which each were tested. Wind is better on your chart than oil and gas - so.. why are we still using oil and gas?

This chart doesn't take into account new technologies for solar like the V3 solar cone which produces 20 times more electricity than traditional monocrystalline flat panels. It doesn't take into account that you can now buy those monocrystalline flat panels for 50 cents a watt. Most people would use between 3000 and 5000 watts per day for an average size home. That's only 2500 dollars for 5000 watts of daily solar power. I mention this because lots of people in this thread are under the impression that solar panels are expensive. They used to be, not anymore.

Hydro is best on your chart. But who has hydro? Hydro is normally used in large applications like the power plants connected to large dams. There are mini hydro system homeowners can install on their land cheap if they have a stream.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I believe there is a conspiracy and it has to do with city municipalities. If you live where there is a grid, you cannot go OFF that grid. You can hook up to it as a hybrid system and any extra electricity you make will be bought back from you by the power company at such low prices they are sure to make a profit on.

This goes for water and sewage too, If the city has a city water supply, you can't dig your own well. If they have sewage, you cannot use a septic tank.. I'd love to live In the city and live off the grid. They won't let you. You have to go to places that are unincorporated and which have no plans to expand that area. This is why I'm looking for land to build my off the grid solar home. otherwise, I'd use my 2400 sq foot home that's two blocks from a lake right in the middle of a New Orleans suburb.

This should be Illegal. If you own land and choose not to use the city utilities and have alternate means, you should be allowed to.

Since there is no demand for power in America with her people having no money....they turned off many of the wind turbines.

They could have turned off the other power sources and used the cheaper Wind turbine power....but they opted to use the GreenHouse Gas creating power stations instead.

Much of the solar power panels have been going to the smart people countries. Small european countries and the oil princes in the middle east.

China is the only developed country successfully putting solar power into their infrastructure. America's got other agendas as the Big Money players don't want the public driving fuel efficient vehicles are having cheap electricity. They want you using mass quantities of oil, subsidizes DOD's needs.

Originally posted by violet
It sounds nice in theory but it isn't that simple.

Solar power requires the Sun and where I live its mostly Gray skies in the storm season, and most definitely would be clouded over in an approaching storm. It wouldn't help in this situation. My storms don't have 'eyes' where sunny breaks appear in order to charge them.

If there's any conspiracy, it would be about keeping us dependant on their services, not for profit, but to control all energy sources. They can pull off a total blackout any time they need to.

edit on 31-10-2012 by violet because: (no reason given)

No, solar panels do not require direct sunlight at all to create energy. Too much direct sunlight actually causes them to be less effective unless they are equipped with a cooling system.

reply to post by JohnPhoenix

I find your EROI chart laughable. I wonder who put it out and who their partners are.

Find just about any and they reflect the same thing. Some numbers change in different EROI charts because they are done based on different projects. In most cases Hydro Dams will return with the highest efficiencies, but in some cases they net 50:1 as opposed to higher 100:1 or 150:1.

No matter what though you normally see solar around the same because of the poor efficiencies associated with collection and distribution. The solar cells themselves only have a short lifespan as well, and they take a lot of technology, and oil based products to produce.

That's changing... But for now...

EROI for geothermal:

The EROI for electricity generation from hydrothermal resources has been reported by a handful of researchers with a range of 2.0 to 13.0 (Table 1).

Link

Geothermal has other drawbacks, like creating earthquakes. I covered it here.

But beyond that the EROI is not as high as some other, and like many alternative energies its limited to feasible locations.

so.. why are we still using oil and gas?

Infrastructure, familiarity, returns on profit, the need for the thousands if not millions of products produced by oil byproducts.

This chart doesn't take into account new technologies for solar like the V3 solar cone which produces 20 times more electricity than traditional monocrystalline flat panels.

Operating project and calculated EROI, can you show that?

I showed some new projects coming out... The monetary return was 4:1. Not bad. Lots of profit to be made. Quadrupling your money aint bad for a business project, and if it's successful you will probably see more in the future. By that time you might be ready to bad mouth "big solar" though...

This should be Illegal. If you own land and choose not to use the city utilities and have alternate means, you should be allowed to.

Power costs people in the products they by from the markup in energy it takes to create those products. What you spend at the home in electricity cost is relatively nothing. Compared to doing the same tasks with human energy and the food you would consume to perform them.

Youre right. But, nothing will be done. Your and my opinions will end in a piles of email complaints and held against the huge piles of money these ruling power companies have.

PTB, NWO, ILLUMINATI....the "whole"... is SOOOOO much greater than anyone's complaints. Nothing will change...sadly. Absolutely power corrupts absoluetly...and they have it. Not us.

Think along the lines of 100mpg gasoline, or water to run cars...been done, could make life easier for humanity...but it wont happen due to the "diminishing" of $$$$ and control these huge conglomerates have over us.

Dont make the mistake of thinking you matter...and "do whats right"...and we have "to let them know...."....all are pointless.

One giant shoe crushes anthills of thousands of ant with one step...and this is what they do.

I don't know about elsewhere but in the UK, Solar power is becoming big business. The government are in full control of it though (or trying to be) with the Green Deal and I genuinely see a drive towards more energy efficiency. There are other technologies worth bearing in mind such as voltage optimisation which is designed to reduce waste of electricity AND it is relatively cheap. There are other not so cheap measures such as air source and ground source heat pumps and their performance is questionable. I think energy efficiency is in it's infancy as a 'new agenda' and Solar may not be the most efficient at the moment.

Originally posted by SGTSECRET

No, solar panels do not require direct sunlight at all to create energy. Too much direct sunlight actually causes them to be less effective unless they are equipped with a cooling system.

I'd like to piggy back on that. My solar panels work best on cloudy days down here by the equator. Somehow the clouds magnify UV light.

You people way up north on the globe, likely don't enjoy that benefit due to the tilt of the Earth.

reply to post by Pervius


This is true, I believe it is because the PV panels only require UV light and with direct sunlight, a lot of it is reflected. On a cloudy day, less light is reflected off the glass covering and allowed to penetrate through to the photovoltaic cells.

reply to post by Pervius


Yes there are several myths about solar that seem to persist...




cleantechnica.com...

reply to post by hawkiye


Thank you, very nice info. Where do stand on the conspiracy issue?

Originally posted by ascension211
reply to post by hawkiye

 

Thank you, very nice info. Where do stand on the conspiracy issue?

Absolutely the energy cartels have a vested interest in keeping the status quo to the tune of billions of dollars... That's why the put out all sorts of propaganda against alternative energies and fuels.

Solar panels you can print out on your ink jet printer were invented 2 or 3 years ago and still have not come to market...Some of the states have all sorts of weird laws limiting solar and wind power...

Most people believe ethanol fuel is not cost effective when in fact is a 1:8 EROI it does not take food away from starving countries etc etc. All the articles can be traced back to one professor who is on the Standard Oil payrolll.

Tesla invented and demonstrated the means for free electricity for all nearly a hundred years ago he was building the apparatus at Wardenclyff NY when JP Morgan who was funding him found out it could not be metered he shut him down and tried to smear his name and erase him from history even though he is the father of our modern electrical world. The future we should have today has been stolen from us by greedy corporatist. free and abundant energy electrical healing devices, fertile soil from desert etc. etc Tesla did it all...

So yeah I'd say I lean toward there being a conspiracy...

"If the genius of invention were to reveal tomorrow the secret of immortality, of eternal beauty and youth, for which all humanity is aching, the same inexorable agents which prevent a mass from changing suddenly its velocity would likewise resist the force of the new knowledge until time gradually modifies human thought."

Nikola Tesla

reply to post by hawkiye


Why don't you consider backing up your claims with sources because your track record so far implies you are flat out lying. (I will demonstrate).

That's why the put out all sorts of propaganda against alternative energies and fuels.

I covered some of the solar issue in this thread: Solar energy - Where art thou?

Solar panels you can print out on your ink jet printer were invented 2 or 3 years ago and still have not come to market

Which are 5% efficient as of one article.*** and not commercially viable as of yet.

They managed to produce solar cells of 5% efficiency - and say that in future, they will aim to increase this figure to about 12% to make the product commercially viable.

They also use rare earths that are expensive and which China has a monopoly on.

Most people believe ethanol fuel is not cost effective when in fact is a 1:8 EROI it does not take food away from starving countries etc etc. All the articles can be traced back to one professor who is on the Standard Oil payrolll.

Source?

You are forgetting to mention what kind of ethanol exactly. The best EROI for corn ethanol is never much more than 1.5:1 and for the most part, well below 1:1 making it an energy subsidy.

EROI FOR CORN

netenergy.theoildrum.com...

And there are no big oil influences to be found. Most don't even offer a positive net energy return.

Most alternatives to conventional liquid fuels have very low or unknown EROIs. The EROI for ethanol derived from corn grown in the U.S. is about 1.5:1, well below that for conventional motor gasoline.

Link

You are probably referring to the Brazilian model of sugar cane ethanol which does yield an 8:1 EROI.

Ethanol from sugarcane grown in Brazil apparently has a higher EROI, perhaps as high as 8:1, due to higher yields of sugarcane compared to corn, the use of bagasse as an energy input, and significant cost reductions in ethanol production technology.

Sugarcane is tropical. Growing best in the... Tropics.

Sugarcane is a tropical, perennial grass that forms lateral shoots at the base to produce multiple stems, typically three to four metres high and about five cm in diameter.

...

Sugarcane cultivation requires a tropical or temperate climate, with a minimum of 60 centimetres (24 in) of annual moisture. It is one of the most efficient photosynthesizers in the plant kingdom. It is a C4 plant, able to convert up to one percent of incident solar energy into biomass.[17] In prime growing regions, such as Mauritius, Puerto Rico, India, Indonesia, Pakistan, Peru, Brazil, Bolivia, Colombia, Australia, Ecuador, Cuba, the Philippines, El Salvador and Hawaii, sugarcane crop can produce over 15 kilograms of cane per square meter of sunshine.

***

Notice that the USA is not on that list.

Tesla invented and demonstrated the means for

Here we go again with Tesla rhetoric...



Who is the propagandist again?

JP Morgan who was funding him found out it could not be metered he shut him down and tried to smear his name and erase him from history

The stock market crash of 1901 and the soaring costs of the tower led to the scheme’s collapse and the tower was demolished for salvage in 1917.

texthistory.wordpress.com...
Panic of 1901

Tesla was by no means forgotten either, he had a patent shortly after his death, and he also had a unit of measurement named after him. Source

If anyone claims to be suppressed by history it should be Hippolyte Pixii, the actual inventor of AC (Although he couldn't have done it without Faraday...) * but claims like that are stupid, because it's usually just the ignorance of the claimants that imply the fact of suppression. Since they are still in the history books and all...

reply to post by boncho


Wow another book of a post to try and justify your ridiculous BS...Sigh! I already posted huge graphic refutation of your solar non-sense with references...

I was speaking of ethanol not corn and I have already posted threads on all of this backing all my assertions. While corn is not the best for ethanol it is not the worst either it is in the middle.

Oil is subsidized far more then ethanol and the Ethanol subsidies ended in 2011

You seem to think that by continually repeating BS lies that it will somehow stick.

Most ethanol research over the past 25 years has been on the topic of energy returned on energy invested (EROEI). Public discussion has been dominated by the American Petroleum Institute’s aggressive distribution of the work of Cornell professor David Pimentel and his numerous, deeply flawed studies. Pimentel stands virtually alone in portraying alcohol as having a negative EROEI—producing less energy than is used in its production.

In fact, it’s oil that has a negative EROEI. Because oil is both the raw material and the energy source for production of gasoline, it comes out to about 20% negative. That’s just common sense; some of the oil is itself used up in the process of refining and delivering it (from the Persian Gulf, a distance of 11,000 miles in tanker travel).

The most exhaustive study on ethanol’s EROEI, by Isaias de Carvalho Macedo, shows an alcohol energy return of more than eight units of output for every unit of input—and this study accounts for everything right down to smelting the ore to make the steel for tractors.

www.permaculture.com...

Brazil is living proof they run 50% of their cars on ethanol and imported zero oil for many years up till a few years ago when they caved to international (US) pressure from the oil cartels...

Anyway ignore Bonchos BS he jumps on every energy thread and repeats the same BS over and over no matter how many times it has been debunked...

reply to post by hawkiye

Brazil is living proof they run 50% of their cars on ethanol and imported zero oil for many years up till a few years ago when they caved to international (US) pressure from the oil cartels...

Anyway ignore Bonchos BS he jumps on every energy thread and repeats the same BS over and over no matter how many times it has been debunked...

You should probably try reading my posts instead of just claiming they are "debunked" in magical fashion. Care to tell us how much sugarcane the US grows per annum?

I can help you. The US numbers for sugar production are around 50 Million tons.

Florida, the top producing state, produced more than 13.1 million tons of sugarcane for sugar in 2011. The state typically contributes about half of the total U.S. cane sugar crop. That same year, Louisiana produced more than 10.8 million tons of sugarcane. Texas and Hawaii also produce more than one million tons annually. (NASS)

*

Brasil on the other hand produces nearly 1/3 the world's production totals:

Brazil is, by far, the world's largest producer of sugarcane, accounting for one third of world production.

Revised estimate for 2011/2012 sugarcane harvest sets total South-Central Brazil harvest at 510.24 million tons

Source

So if you can enlighten us on how the US is supposed to be able to boost ethanol use while only producing 10% of the sugarcane Brazil does, by all means tell us. Remember that there are only 3 or 4 states that can even grow it...

Oil is subsidized far more then ethanol and the Ethanol subsidies ended in 2011

You've misunderstood what I mean by subsidy. If an energy production system has a negative EROI, than the only way to keep it going is to put more energy into it (subsidizing the energy produced). If corn is 1.5:1, than it's fine, but if it's 0.8:1, than it is a subsidy.

And oil does not give a negative EROI, in almost every case. It wouldn't be profitable if it did. Don't forget it's one of the most taxed commodities there is also...

In fact, it’s oil that has a negative EROEI. Because oil is both the raw material and the energy source for production of gasoline, it comes out to about 20% negative. That’s just common sense; some of the oil is itself used up in the process of refining and delivering it (from the Persian Gulf, a distance of 11,000 miles in tanker travel).

This is completely wrong. A well that produces 10,000 barrels a day produces 16,000 mWh*, if the well produced that for a year that's 6,000,000 mWh's, this article is claiming it would take more than 6,000,000 mWh to transport and refine the oil.

Considering it only takes 2 or 3 very large tankers to move that oil*

42500 horsepower-hour = 18.6490080968 barrels of

The ship that carris 1.8 million barrels requires about 18 barrels of oil (an hour) to propel it. For it to go use more fuel in transport than what it's delivering, it would have to run a million hours. Something tells me the trip overseas doesn't take that long...

reply to post by hawkiye


Your source is as misleading as you are. If you actually bothered to read it, or check his sources, you would have seen that his reference for an 8:1 EROI was out of Sao Paolo Brazil. And absolutely no different than what I posted in the post above yours.

The most exhaustive study on ethanol’s EROEI, by Isaias de Carvalho Macedo, shows an alcohol energy return of more than eight units of output for every unit of input—and this study accounts for everything right down to smelting the ore to make the steel for tractors.

Thank you for strengthening my argument.

Originally posted by boncho
reply to post by hawkiye

Brazil is living proof they run 50% of their cars on ethanol and imported zero oil for many years up till a few years ago when they caved to international (US) pressure from the oil cartels...

Anyway ignore Bonchos BS he jumps on every energy thread and repeats the same BS over and over no matter how many times it has been debunked...

 

You should probably try reading my posts instead of just claiming they are "debunked" in magical fashion. Care to tell us how much sugarcane the US grows per annum?

I can help you. The US numbers for sugar production are around 50 Million tons.

Florida, the top producing state, produced more than 13.1 million tons of sugarcane for sugar in 2011. The state typically contributes about half of the total U.S. cane sugar crop. That same year, Louisiana produced more than 10.8 million tons of sugarcane. Texas and Hawaii also produce more than one million tons annually. (NASS)

*

Brasil on the other hand produces nearly 1/3 the world's production totals:

Brazil is, by far, the world's largest producer of sugarcane, accounting for one third of world production.

Revised estimate for 2011/2012 sugarcane harvest sets total South-Central Brazil harvest at 510.24 million tons

Source

So if you can enlighten us on how the US is supposed to be able to boost ethanol use while only producing 10% of the sugarcane Brazil does, by all means tell us. Remember that there are only 3 or 4 states that can even grow it...

Oil is subsidized far more then ethanol and the Ethanol subsidies ended in 2011

You've misunderstood what I mean by subsidy. If an energy production system has a negative EROI, than the only way to keep it going is to put more energy into it (subsidizing the energy produced). If corn is 1.5:1, than it's fine, but if it's 0.8:1, than it is a subsidy.

And oil does not give a negative EROI, in almost every case. It wouldn't be profitable if it did. Don't forget it's one of the most taxed commodities there is also...

you continue to put your complete and glaring ignorance on display. Brazil only uses 1% of their farmland to produce ethanol/ Sugar cain is a high producer of ethanol but not the highest. Just because we do not produce as much sugarcain as Brazil means nothing. We could produce more if we wanted. However Sweet Sorghum is a better producer of ethanol and will grow in every State in the US. Along with many other crops like fodder beats and even non crops like Mesquite and cattails. They are also high producers of ethanol and could be grown in areas not considered useful for much of anything.

I did not misunderstand subsidies apparently you do not even know what the term means. You repeat the lie that ethanol could not survive without subsidies. Well they stopped in 2011 and ethanol is on the rise. Oil is the most subsidized product on the planet! Big oil has the politicians in their pockets and they get more subsidies and kickback etc and then any other product.

The entire US Military expenditure is an off book oil subsidy too for that matter...



priceofoil.org...