[Chongo]

carbon, yes, fossil... Just curious, how did dinosaurs get 3 miles under the ocean?

[peeb]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

carbon, yes, fossil... Just curious, how did dinosaurs get 3 miles under the ocean?

Is this a question about Creationism? Am I wrong in thinking that all fossil fuels are decomposed organic matter?

[Chongo]

Abiogenic petroleum origin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Mithras]

So it's not creationism, just crackpot science of another ilk.

[peeb]

I'm having trouble seeing how this digression into pseudoscience is on topic.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by peeb 

Just to be clear, we're talking about essentially an off-grid system that provides nearly all the power for a large home? While that does sound a lot of outlay, when you spread that out over the useful life of the system and compare it with the actual cost of other fuels, it looks much more reasonable.

This is NOT for an essentially off-grid system.

This is a system for a large home in northern climes in an area where there isn't sun like Nevada, to provide partial power to the home.

As I said, and you ignored, since we agree that carbon fuels are subsidized so highly, it only looks expensive compared to socialized fossil fuels.

As others have said, give if it a rest already.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by Eug 

As others have said, give if it a rest already.

What do you mean exactly by 'give it a rest already'? Does this mean that you were wrong, and have repented, or that your head is spinning too much and you want to get off the ride, or what? You make it sound like I'm doing something unreasonable - I'm asking whether you accept the demonstration that carbon fuels do, in fact, receive more subsidy than solar - I don't think that's unreasonable.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by peeb 

What do you mean exactly by 'give it a rest already'? Does this mean that you were wrong, and have repented, or that your head is spinning too much and you want to get off the ride, or what? You make it sound like I'm doing something unreasonable - I'm asking whether you accept the demonstration that carbon fuels do, in fact, receive more subsidy than solar - I don't think that's unreasonable.

I do not accept that argument. You've asked the question several times, and I had answered already, and even pointed out that the solar companies themselves don't make this claim. They're not stupid enough to claim this because they know people will just look at them like they're completely out to lunch. And like I said before, your vigorous handwaving isn't going to convince anyone.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by Eug 

I do not accept that argument, and never have. You've asked the question several times, and I've answered already, and even pointed out that the solar companies themselves don't make this claim. They're not stupid enough to claim this because they know people will just look at them like they're completely out to lunch. And like I said before, your vigorous handwaving isn't going to convince anyone.

So which part of the extensive evidence (not hand waving, as you'd like to think) do you dispute? Perhaps you dispute the US government's own figures about it's subsidies? Or is this just an ostrich position you're taking?
The facts that I've posted are pretty plain - you can just look at the government's own figures - carbon fuels get more subsidy than solar. If you're not going to accept that, some response to the extensive evidence is required.

[Eug]

P.S. I find it odd that you didn't even know how much these types of solar installations actually cost. For someone who claims to be an expert on the economics of solar, you seem to be missing very basic knowledge on the stuff. Even worse, despite your several days of arguments, you didn't even bother to find out the costs involved, and yet continued to spout about solar's inherent cheapness. My guess is you had never looked into it before, and just made some bizarre assumptions for the purpose of this thread. Anyone who had actually looked into it even superficially would have known that it's quite easy to spend north of $50000 for a basic home solar installation for a large home, and often much more.

[peeb]

Oh dear Eug.
Please go back and read what I asked you. Do you dispute the government's own figures which shows that carbon fuels are more subsidized than solar? You dodging and weaving to try not to address this simple question is beginning to look even more feeble.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by peeb 

Do you dispute the government's own figures which shows that carbon fuels are more subsidized than solar?

You mean the government's own figures you haven't bother to link in this thread? Or are you trying to pass off this link (yet again) as "proof"?

The only way your statement can make sense is if you're talking about absolute numbers, as opposed to percentages, since solar represents such a miniscule part of the market. Or if you're talking about those "hidden costs" again.

Oh and BTW... Do you have any explanation as to why you were so completely off-base to the cost of solar? It's hard to take any solar-is-cheap proponent's arguments seriously... if he doesn't actually know how much solar costs.

[peeb]

My God. You've finally got it. Yes. I'm talking about the amount of subsidy that carbon fuels get being bigger than the amount that solar gets. So, you finally admit that carbon fuels get more subsidy than solar?

Re 'my claims' about solar, I think the only claim that I made was that I thought your estimates seemed high, which they turned out to be. I don't think I have ever claimed that solar was 'cheap', simply that carbon fuels are artificially cheap because of the huge public subsidy they get.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by peeb 

My God. You've finally got it. Yes. I'm talking about the amount of subsidy that carbon fuels get being bigger than the amount that solar gets. So, you finally admit that carbon fuels get more subsidy than solar?

OK, in absolute dollar value, something that represents <1% of the market gets less support than something that represents the bulk of the US market. OMG STOP THE PRESSES!

Thanks for refuting your own argument. Anyone with any basic understanding of the issues should know we are talking about percentages, not absolute dollar values.

Re 'my claims' about solar, I think the only claim that I made was that I thought your estimates seemed high, which they turned out to be. I don't think I have ever claimed that solar was 'cheap', simply that carbon fuels are artificially cheap because of the huge public subsidy they get.

Nice backtrack. You conveniently forget that you claimed a 8 kW system was probably basically an off-grid system. I'll repeat again. It isn't. It's a system to provide partial power for a large North American home. The argument can be made that our houses are too big and probably aren't efficient enough, and I'd agree with you, but that is definitely not what you said.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by Eug 

OK, in absolute dollar value, something that represents <1% of the market gets less support than something that represents the bulk of the US market. OMG STOP THE PRESSES!

Great. So now that you've admitted that carbon fuels do, indeed, receive more subsidy than solar, we can move on. Thanks for taking the time to follow along and figure out what we were talking about.

Originally Posted by Eug 

Anyone with any basic understanding of the issues should know we are talking about percentages, not absolute dollar values.

Well, I'm sorry - perhaps if that was what you were talking about you should have talked about it. You never once mentioned percentages. Of what, by the way? Are you talking about percentages of production, use in the home? If you're going to have secret conversations that you don't tell the rest of us about it's hard to talk to you.

Originally Posted by Eug 

Nice backtrack. You conveniently forget that you claimed a 8 kW system was probably basically an off-grid system.

Trackback? Read my post above - I asked you whether that was for an off-grid home.

Originally Posted by Eug 

It isn't. It's a system to provide partial power for a large North American home. The argument can be made that our houses are too big and probably aren't efficient enough, and I'd agree with you, but that is definitely not what you said.

Those arguments can indeed be made. I did not claim that this was an off-grid system - I asked you whether it was. I don't know what your point is, other than to try to distract from your embarrassment.

I suppose you're trying to say that that figure is unreasonably high in your mind, when you compare it to the State Subsidized Carbon Fuels that you are used to? Well, that's an interesting question. You could do the math, and figure out what the cost per watt is over the lifetime of the system, which would be a more useful figure than the rather pointless and misleading installation cost which you keep bandying around. Then you could figure out a comparison of the real cost of carbon fuel per watt is, and compare them. But I doubt that you are either interested or capable of doing that.

[el chupacabra]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

carbon, yes, fossil... Just curious, how did dinosaurs get 3 miles under the ocean?

oil comes from plankton.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by peeb 

Great. So now that you've admitted that carbon fuels do, indeed, receive more subsidy than solar, we can move on. Thanks for taking the time to follow along and figure out what we were talking about.

Well, I'm sorry - perhaps if that was what you were talking about you should have talked about it. You never once mentioned percentages. Of what, by the way? Are you talking about percentages of production, use in the home? If you're going to have secret conversations that you don't tell the rest of us about it's hard to talk to you.

Thanks for admitting this. It's now settled IMO. Now you might understand why most of the solar power companies don't make the claim they are less subsidized. On a per Watt generation basis, they aren't.

Those arguments can indeed be made. I did not claim that this was an off-grid system - I asked you whether it was. I don't know what your point is, other than to try to distract from your embarrassment.

I don't understand how anyone with a claimed understand of solar economics could even ask that question. It illustrates a complete lack of understanding of the numbers.

Here's some basic math...

My house is wired for 450 Amps. That's 54000 Watts. ie. That's almost 7 TIMES the amount of that 8 kW solar system (which costs $72000). To install a solar setup that could supply all of that completely off-grid using the cheaper $7 per Watt would cost $378000.

However, I don't ever use anywhere near 54000 Watts obviously, but it's not unusual for an average house to be using over 100 Amps (12000 Watts) at peak, and more for a large house with a reasonably sized family. Remember, most builds for medium sized homes come with 200 Amp boxes, because the 125 A boxes found in small homes simply aren't sufficient. This is not surprising, considering a lowly hair dryer might use 13 A alone. (My previous two bedroom townhouse had a 125 Amp box.)

I also have 30 Amps in my house switchable to an off-grid source. 30 A is 3600 Watts, but that's only enough power for a couple of rooms and a couple of small appliances.

Furthermore, an 8 kW solar system is usually producing much less than 8 kW. The 8 kW number is a theoretical maximum. On a cloudy day it would be way below that, and after a few big snowstorms where I live it might be many days with less than 1 kW power generation, because of snow buildup. Not everyone lives in Nevada.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

carbon, yes, fossil... Just curious, how did dinosaurs get 3 miles under the ocean?

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Abiogenic petroleum origin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ahhhhhhhhhhhahahahaha…"how did dinosaurs get 3 miles under the ocean"…classic!

"Mankind's only chance is to harness the power of stupid."



greg