Enviro's oppose Solar Power!

Everyone says we need to reduce our dependence on oil, especially foriegn oil. It's bad for the environment, it enriches our enemies, and we're going to eventually run out of it.

The problem is that the environmental left, in addition to opposing oil, opposes every possible substitute. They oppose nuclear, they oppose windmills (birds might fly into them), they oppose hydroelectric (destruction of habitat in the flooded area and it inconveniences, the fish). Now it turns out they also oppose solar power.

Frackin' solar power.

So if we put a generate a bunch of solar power in the desert, these bastards are going to bitch about the power lines! How the fuck are we supposed to get the power from the desert to where we need it without power lines?

At some point, we just need to tell these jackasses to stuff it and do what needs to be done.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I'll go out on a limb, and make a blind guess: there's another route for the power lines, but it costs more money.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

mad come on, high voltage power lines have been shown to among other things cause increased cases of cancer. Why do you think its illegal to build houses under them. As james and iceaura have pointed out its nothing to do with the power source and everything to do with the route of the power lines.

You just dont like enviromentilists but i hate to tell you your fighting a losing battle there, the green movement has now recurited its most bitter former enermies, ie the farming communites. They look around and see there properties turn into a dust bowl because of the worst drout on record and they now aline themselves with the "greenies"

 

james i will check it but im dam sure i herd an ABC report about a year ago on the increased risk of cancer from high voltage power lines.

Edit to add: WOW that was easy

 

then there is this one as well

 

Solar power is a waste of space. It's also not energy efficient, in that the amounts of power it produces based on what it takes to make the production happen pretty much makes the entire endeavour a waste of time.

 

counterzero would you like to back that up?

A solor pannel produces the amount of energy used in its production in 18 months

 

I don't have anything on hand at the moment, but a few months back, I got this big brief package on energy that basically crapped all over Ethanol, which is now yesterday's news, and talked about how inefficient solar power is.

If I recall correctly, the gist of the argument is that it takes massive arrays that cover massive amounts of space to generate the amount of power a coal or nuclear plant does, which makes it, overall, and unlikely option for longterm energy security.

This is unrelated, but it's a good article about energy policy.

http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2008/05/the-seven-myths-of-energy-independence.html

 

not true either. There is a company in the US making VERY efficent solor pannels, he used to be the proffessor at sydney university but when he designed this he couldnt get the australian goverment to surport it so he went off shore and is now trying to sell it back to us. It has something to do with the way it stores heat for night that makes it so great or something. Anyway this is surposed to be a great system for use as a base load power system.

will have to try to find it because they were talking about it on LNL (i think) the other day

 

Another issue with solar panels is efficiency. Each one is only 8 to 15 percent efficient. Therefore, single solar panels do not produce enough power in and of themselves. They also do not work well enough if the sunlight is even partially obstructed. Houses are rarely at the ideal angle for maximum exposure, which further cuts efficiency. Trees and other houses can create unwanted shade. Long stretches of bad weather can render the solar panels nearly useless. These efficiency issues have been addressed by creating solar arrays. But solar arrays are part of the space problem because they take…well, a lot of space. There have been recent breakthroughs in solar technology that bounce their efficiency rating up to 40 percent. Once on the market, solar will become a power player in the energy market.

Solar panels are expensive to install, about $7 per watt of needed output or $700 per 100 watts. If you consider that most single-family homes use several thousands watts per day, then the cost is clearly high. For apartment and condo complexes, the amount of wattage used increases exponentially, and the use of solar panels would probably not be sufficient. Maintenance costs must also be factored in as a potential problem when considering solar energy. All this being said, installation costs can be serious offset with government incentives including rebates and massive tax credits

http://ezinearticles.com/?What-Can-Go-Wrong-with-Solar-Panels?&id=575738

 

I am right with you on this, mad! There's a certain proportion of the population that simply seems to think we can get by without energy, find objections to every damned thing, and I should like to set these buggers to work on dynamo-equipped treadmills. Alternatively, galleys would provide a means of reducing the carbon footprint of coastal shipping!

Gee! We're not allowed to have high voltage power lines because they cause cancer? You can't route them through a State Park because they cause cancer? Who are they giving cancer to? Coyotes?

In the UK, it get windier the further west and north you go -- making the most economic site for windfarms the Isle of Lewis in the Scottish Western Isles. There have been commercial interests actively looking to develop wind farms there for at least eight years -- and you can trace the earliest proposals for wind power generation there back almost thirty years. Let's be honest: there is a disadvantage in it being some distance away from most electricity users -- but, heck, the UK is a pretty tiny place. Is there a large population who might have environmental objections? No, as luck would have it, it is among the most thinly populated places in the nation. Is it Grade A farming land? No, its mostly peat.

Earlier this year, the location was ruled out. Digging the trenches for power lines between the windmills "would damage the structure of the peat" (affect the drainage in some way, I believe). That's what my Lib-Dem MP's research assistant tells me, for Peat's sake! Actually, it's probably mostly a Scottish thing: they are always sure they are being got at in some way, and being obstructive gives them a power trip!

So we are looking at building windmills offshore. They would cost 30% more to build offshore and probably 60% more to maintain, would have a shorter operating life, but there wouldn't be any folk living nearby to stir up trouble. Except -- you've got it! -- they are apparently going to slaughter the birdlife. My advice to the birds: if you see a blade coming . . . duck!

 

Wait, I thought an administration made up of ex and future oil execs already started a war to get access to oil. It was expensive, of course, but effective, at least for thos who will reap the profits from the enterprise. Seems like there has been AN UNBELIEVABLE AMOUNT OF DOING, so I do not know what kinds of 'do what needs to be done' you are hankering after. Who have been sitting on their conservative asses and not doing things?

 

Civilization is bad for the environment. It's not sustainable. Alternative energy still entails massive amounts of energy being manipulated for our own mostly selfish and unnecessary use.

 

whenever something like this comes up i always think of the team america pussy,dick,asshole analogy.we need all sides in order to arrive at a fair comprimise.
although...i might just be drunk.

 

Well, I like to make the thread titles grab your attention. Sure, it would be more accurate to say that this particular environmental group opposes this particular solar power project based upon the route of the power lines.

But the broader point is valid. While environmentalists might claim they support solar power in the abstract, they will oppose any actual solar power project because whenever you build something you "damage" the environment.

These people live in some fantasy world where you don't have to make choices. They expect that when they flip a switch, the light will come on. They expect the internet to work. They expect air conditioning, fresh latte's, organic food trucked from the other side of the planet.

They expect all these things yet they oppose every possible way of providing them.

Prove me wrong. Show me one power plant in the world capable of generating significant levels of power not opposed by some envirnomental group.

 

do you actually think this is true?

 

Someone needs to point out potential environmental damage. The fact that windmills kill birds is a factor, but not necessarily a show-stopper, it's still clean and mostly friendly, perhaps some kind of noise warning system could help. Solar power is still very encouraging, provided we are aware of how these plants effect the environment.

 

Huh ? It's the other way around.