Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,283   Posts: 1,534,915   Online: 849
      
Page 29 of 32 FirstFirst ... 1923242526272829303132 LastLast
Results 281 to 290 of 312
  1. #281

    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    7,241
    Images
    225
    Quote Originally Posted by Athiril View Post
    If you want my opinion, you should be investing in nuclear power.


    As a photography enthusiast, you should see how wind turbines wreck pristine natural areas and landscapes.

    Wind and solar cannot deliver base load power. They are token symbols only. Just exactly how many wind turbines would they need to deliver base load power?

    You'll see these issues crop up with Germany, because of that, they don't really have anything to replace nuclear power with. Unless it's back to fossil fuel, like coal, which is stupid, because not only can nuclear provide base load power, it also is clean, and saves lives (unlike coal power).

    Yet they want to build 26 new coal plants (iirc). Wind and solar is meaningless, especially when they planning to transition back to coal.

    Germany import more electricity than they produce themselves already. This is just a disaster waiting to happen.

    In 2010 they produced 1528 TWh, in 2010, Wind Power produced in Germany was a piddling 37.793 TWh.
    What was their solar power production?


    Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

  2. #282
    Athiril's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Melbourne, Vic, Australia
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    2,498
    Images
    28
    I have edited my previous post. For Solar power in Germany, in 2010 it was 11.729 TWh, in 2012 it was 28 TWh.

    The Liberose Photovoltaic Park (which is not their largest, but has more easy stats available), can allegedly produce 0.053 TWh, which according to what I can find, uses 2.2km^2 of land.

    Or 41.5km^2 per TWh, much better than wind power, but would still need to blanket half the country's land mass to produce the amount of energy they consume. Though their it's not a complete dead end like wind power.

    Solar can be embedded in windows of high rise buildings and the like.

  3. #283
    lxdude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Redlands, So. Calif.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,626
    Quote Originally Posted by Athiril View Post
    As a photography enthusiast, you should see how wind turbines wreck pristine natural areas and landscapes.
    Much of the early wind turbine development and emplacement in the 70's was here in SoCal, in the San Gorgonio Pass where I lived at the time, and not far from where I live now. I watched with excitement the different types of turbines that were tried, including the eggbeater style, and increasingly larger propeller-type turbines.

    I was enthusiastic for a long time, until I came to understand the massive amount of land they require, and the effect of having, not a few tens, or a couple hundred, but thousands of them in an area. There used to be a very beautiful view driving through the Pass on Interstate 10 or roads paralleling it. Towering above is Mt. San Jacinto at almost 11,000 feet. In one sweep of your gaze you could follow its line from that height to below sea level on the desert floor. Majestic. Gorgeous. And now, that view is gone, violated by rows and rows of turbines, just one huge generating plant. And the same on the other side of the pass, except on that side the Painted Hills, where I walked and took so many pictures, are now cris-crossed with rows of turbines. More than 5000 acres through the Pass, over 3000 of them public land.
    The San Gorgonio Pass, the Bay Area's Altamont Pass, and Tehachapi Pass south of the Central Valley, comprise 95% of California's wind power capacity, and annually claim thousands of birds, large and small, sparrows to eagles. The birds (and most humans) do not understand the actual speed of those huge turbine blades.

    The total amount of California's electricity that wind produces for all those thousands of acres of land, all that visual blight, all those bird deaths, all the 30+ years of heavy subsidies just to get it to the point of something close to competitive? 1.5% That's right. One and a half percent. Less than one terawatt.
    And the best wind power areas are already taken. It cannot be efficiently expanded much more.

    The wind power companies make a big deal out of the present wind power being able to power a city the size of San Francisco. Big deal, indeed. San Jose is bigger than San Francisco. So is San Diego. And of course, L.A. is larger than those three combined.

    I think wind is fine for someone going off the grid in a rural area, if that's what they want. But in my opinion, large-scale wind power sucks.
    Last edited by lxdude; 08-12-2013 at 02:35 AM. Click to view previous post history.
    I do use a digital device in my photographic pursuits when necessary.
    When someone rags on me for using film, I use a middle digit, upraised.

  4. #284
    lxdude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Redlands, So. Calif.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,626
    Quote Originally Posted by Athiril View Post
    I have edited my previous post. For Solar power in Germany, in 2010 it was 11.729 TWh, in 2012 it was 28 TWh.

    The Liberose Photovoltaic Park (which is not their largest, but has more easy stats available), can allegedly produce 0.053 TWh, which according to what I can find, uses 2.2km^2 of land.

    Or 41.5km^2 per TWh, much better than wind power, but would still need to blanket half the country's land mass to produce the amount of energy they consume. Though their it's not a complete dead end like wind power.

    Solar can be embedded in windows of high rise buildings and the like.
    I think photovoltaics have a better future than wind. I don't like what I'm seeing with the headlong rush by the government to suddenly throw money at solar. The new solar plants are large-scale affairs on public lands in our deserts, relying on heat concentration to drive steam turbines, so it's the same old big-business-gets-the-big-bucks sort of federal government largesse, with large transmission losses to populated areas. Meanwhile, Southern California has hundreds of thousands of acres of flat-topped commercial buildings which could have solar panels installed on them. Warehouses and other low-draw operations would produce much more power than they use. That could make a significant dent in the consumption of electricity in SoCal, with minimal transmission losses. I expect to see new ideas and technologies improve photovoltaics by a lot in the next several decades if R&D gets funded, privately or publicly. Meanwhile, the solar generating plants being planned and built are going to despoil more beautiful areas with transmission towers and lines.
    I do use a digital device in my photographic pursuits when necessary.
    When someone rags on me for using film, I use a middle digit, upraised.

  5. #285
    AgX
    AgX is offline

    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Germany
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    8,518
    Quote Originally Posted by StoneNYC View Post
    Fracking makes me so angry, I can't believe no one has shut that down already, it's one of the most dangerous things we could possibly be doing to our ecosystem and our own citizens, it pollutes the water, the air, and might actually be affecting the tectonic plates in a way as well.
    ...
    Instead of investing in fracking we should be investing in solar and wind energy,Germany did it, and they don't exactly live in the most sunny area of the world,...
    In Germany fracking is in the planning too. The discussion about it has already started.

    We not only have a lot of solar cells on roofs (and small dedicated solar fields, I have not come across yet), but also a lot of huge wind-mills all around here in the in-land. The latter are growing as mushrooms.

    The problem Germany is facing is as well getting the produced electricity from the most effective off-shore and coastal wind-mill sites to the customers inland, as well as lacking effective means to store electric energy beyond the current hydraulic stores.

  6. #286

    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    7,241
    Images
    225
    Hmm then how come people with roof solar panels actually make money off the electric company because their net use is less than their net creation and so the leftover is sent to the electric company meaning they get a check from them for producing energy?

    I think homes could easily run off of solar only, I think it's only large factory and schools and office buildings that would use too much power.

    Anyway there's lots of solutions, people are just not willing to change or implement because its either too inconvenient or less profitable..q


    Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

  7. #287
    AgX
    AgX is offline

    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Germany
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    8,518
    Quote Originally Posted by StoneNYC View Post
    Hmm then how come people with roof solar panels actually make money off the electric company because their net use is less than their net creation and so the leftover is sent to the electric company meaning they get a check from them for producing energy?
    Yes. In Germany alternative electricity production payment is subsidized by the state. That money again is taken from the consumer by a special electricity tax.

    Recently that subsidizing had to be reduced source-wise, as so many production sites arose.

  8. #288

    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    7,241
    Images
    225
    Quote Originally Posted by AgX View Post
    Yes. In Germany alternative electricity production payment is subsidized by the state. That money again is taken from the consumer by a special electricity tax.

    Recently that subsidizing had to be reduced source-wise, as so many production sites arose.
    In the US we have the same pay back system for solar but no tax


    Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

  9. #289

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Castle Rock, CO, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,349
    Images
    58
    Quote Originally Posted by StoneNYC View Post
    I think homes could easily run off of solar only, I think it's only large factory and schools and office buildings that would use too much power.
    Well, not exactly. They would need some storage batteries to make it through the night, but it's not too far-fetched. Probably the best solar setup is to be grid-connected to buy at night and sell during the day. The hardest part is that the initial capital costs for solar are pretty high and the payoff very slow.
    All paths are the same: they lead nowhere. Choose the one that has heart.

    Don Juan

  10. #290

    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Mission Viejo, California
    Shooter
    127 Format
    Posts
    1,456
    Well I guess we ave all determined by now that Ilford won't be making color Film !
    - Bill Lynch



 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin