It's Official: Solar Is the Cheapest Electricity in History

joeydavid

Head Coach
Feb 5, 2003
11,945
5,655
113
Tough break for fossil fuels.

Solar is now ‘cheapest electricity in history’, confirms IEA

The world’s best solar power schemes now offer the “cheapest…electricity in history” with the technology cheaper than coal and gas in most major countries.

That is according to the International Energy Agency’s World Energy Outlook 2020. The 464-page outlook, published today by the IEA, also outlines the “extraordinarily turbulent” impact of coronavirus and the “highly uncertain” future of global energy use over the next two decades.

Reflecting this uncertainty, this year’s version of the highly influential annual outlook offers four “pathways” to 2040, all of which see a major rise in renewables. The IEA’s main scenario has 43% more solar output by 2040 than it expected in 2018, partly due to detailed new analysis showing that solar power is 20-50% cheaper than thought.

 

gerrypitt

Scholarship
Jan 20, 2011
298
224
43
63
Sunny sles Fl
Tough break for fossil fuels.

Solar is now ‘cheapest electricity in history’, confirms IEA

The world’s best solar power schemes now offer the “cheapest…electricity in history” with the technology cheaper than coal and gas in most major countries.

That is according to the International Energy Agency’s World Energy Outlook 2020. The 464-page outlook, published today by the IEA, also outlines the “extraordinarily turbulent” impact of coronavirus and the “highly uncertain” future of global energy use over the next two decades.

Reflecting this uncertainty, this year’s version of the highly influential annual outlook offers four “pathways” to 2040, all of which see a major rise in renewables. The IEA’s main scenario has 43% more solar output by 2040 than it expected in 2018, partly due to detailed new analysis showing that solar power is 20-50% cheaper than thought.

Yea right! A leftist group states solar is cheaper ignoring all the production of the panel cost. This reasoning is exactly why California had rolling black outs this summer!
 

caleco's

Assistant Coach
Gold Member
Nov 16, 2005
9,226
4,811
113
Tough break for fossil fuels.

Solar is now ‘cheapest electricity in history’, confirms IEA

The world’s best solar power schemes now offer the “cheapest…electricity in history” with the technology cheaper than coal and gas in most major countries.

That is according to the International Energy Agency’s World Energy Outlook 2020. The 464-page outlook, published today by the IEA, also outlines the “extraordinarily turbulent” impact of coronavirus and the “highly uncertain” future of global energy use over the next two decades.

Reflecting this uncertainty, this year’s version of the highly influential annual outlook offers four “pathways” to 2040, all of which see a major rise in renewables. The IEA’s main scenario has 43% more solar output by 2040 than it expected in 2018, partly due to detailed new analysis showing that solar power is 20-50% cheaper than thought.

this isnt a revelation. the cost to produce install and maintain is the issue. who said the sun was expensive?

the dem legislation here in nv won't let you purchase panels and become free from the grid. they require a cap on 80% production on what i can install on my own roof while forcing me to lease the equipment for 40k. homeowners arenr signing up for this here.

do cloudy parts of the country live in the dark or does everyone move to az and nv.

once again joey you post incomplete inaccurate data based on theory not reality
 

joeydavid

Head Coach
Feb 5, 2003
11,945
5,655
113
this isnt a revelation. the cost to produce install and maintain is the issue. who said the sun was expensive?

the dem legislation here in nv won't let you purchase panels and become free from the grid. they require a cap on 80% production on what i can install on my own roof while forcing me to lease the equipment for 40k. homeowners arenr signing up for this here.

do cloudy parts of the country live in the dark or does everyone move to az and nv.

once again joey you post incomplete inaccurate data based on theory not reality
This is odd. Most cult45ers can't learn more that what fits on a truckers hat. Good for you.

Elon Musk’s Australian Battery Farm Has Saved $116 Million AUD In Two Years

Elon Musk was challenged to fix South Australia’s energy problem in 2017, and just two years on he’s saved Australians millions.

In response, the Tesla founder built a gigantic battery farm to back-up around 30,000 homes – exactly the number that were affected by a lengthy blackout in September 2016

 
  • Like
Reactions: UP_WarStreets

pittbb80

Athletic Director
Oct 9, 2004
18,734
12,996
113
Yea right! A leftist group states solar is cheaper ignoring all the production of the panel cost. This reasoning is exactly why California had rolling black outs this summer!
Not to mention the cost of grid tie ins as well as the fact that battery technology does not exist to an able solar to be used on a wider scale. But that won’t prevent the technically illiterate from saying stupid shit moreover in countries where gas is cheep and plentiful (See the Us which is the Saudi Arabia of natural gas) solar will have a tough time competing

having said that there definitely is a role for solar and wind to play in the energy mix
 
  • Like
Reactions: WannyandWalt

caleco's

Assistant Coach
Gold Member
Nov 16, 2005
9,226
4,811
113
This is odd. Most cult45ers can't learn more that what fits on a truckers hat. Good for you.

Elon Musk’s Australian Battery Farm Has Saved $116 Million AUD In Two Years

Elon Musk was challenged to fix South Australia’s energy problem in 2017, and just two years on he’s saved Australians millions.

In response, the Tesla founder built a gigantic battery farm to back-up around 30,000 homes – exactly the number that were affected by a lengthy blackout in September 2016


thats nice and all but it doesnt help the consumer get panels.

our dem gov was on record saying "we cant do that nv energy will lose jobs" which is why they structured it that way. zero incentive to homeowners. i want solar on my home and cabin but it costs ME more. could care less about companies or the energy company
 
Mar 23, 2019
1,947
1,242
113
Tough break for fossil fuels.

Solar is now ‘cheapest electricity in history’, confirms IEA

The world’s best solar power schemes now offer the “cheapest…electricity in history” with the technology cheaper than coal and gas in most major countries.

That is according to the International Energy Agency’s World Energy Outlook 2020. The 464-page outlook, published today by the IEA, also outlines the “extraordinarily turbulent” impact of coronavirus and the “highly uncertain” future of global energy use over the next two decades.

Reflecting this uncertainty, this year’s version of the highly influential annual outlook offers four “pathways” to 2040, all of which see a major rise in renewables. The IEA’s main scenario has 43% more solar output by 2040 than it expected in 2018, partly due to detailed new analysis showing that solar power is 20-50% cheaper than thought.

How many of you on this board have solar panels on your home or pay for more than 80% renewable energy?
 

joeydavid

Head Coach
Feb 5, 2003
11,945
5,655
113
thats nice and all but it doesnt help the consumer get panels.

our dem gov was on record saying "we cant do that nv energy will lose jobs" which is why they structured it that way. zero incentive to homeowners. i want solar on my home and cabin but it costs ME more. could care less about companies or the energy company
No clue why you couldn't add solar to your house in the manner you want. Never heard of that anywhere (other than a HOA issue).

That said, the solutions are available for the country to be 100% renewable. A decentralized energy grid is better for national security as well.
 

caleco's

Assistant Coach
Gold Member
Nov 16, 2005
9,226
4,811
113
No clue why you couldn't add solar to your house in the manner you want. Never heard of that anywhere (other than a HOA issue).

That said, the solutions are available for the country to be 100% renewable. A decentralized energy grid is better for national security as well.
maybe if you read my post and had comprehension skills you wouldnt have to ask a redundant question
 

HailtoPitt

Chancellor
Jun 18, 2001
22,786
6,173
113
thats nice and all but it doesnt help the consumer get panels.

our dem gov was on record saying "we cant do that nv energy will lose jobs" which is why they structured it that way. zero incentive to homeowners. i want solar on my home and cabin but it costs ME more. could care less about companies or the energy company
I need to put a new roof on my house soon. For about $12,000 more, I can make it a Tesla solar roof and I think I'm going to try to do that. In Ohio! Should be sweet.
 

Gunga_Galunga

Junior
Jan 12, 2017
3,453
4,048
113
Tough break for fossil fuels.

Solar is now ‘cheapest electricity in history’, confirms IEA

The world’s best solar power schemes now offer the “cheapest…electricity in history” with the technology cheaper than coal and gas in most major countries.

That is according to the International Energy Agency’s World Energy Outlook 2020. The 464-page outlook, published today by the IEA, also outlines the “extraordinarily turbulent” impact of coronavirus and the “highly uncertain” future of global energy use over the next two decades.

Reflecting this uncertainty, this year’s version of the highly influential annual outlook offers four “pathways” to 2040, all of which see a major rise in renewables. The IEA’s main scenario has 43% more solar output by 2040 than it expected in 2018, partly due to detailed new analysis showing that solar power is 20-50% cheaper than thought.

Its all in the assumptions. The fact that utilities wouldn't invest a dime without massive subsidies and credits should give you the real answer.

And I'm all for solar, wind, hydro, fossils and nuclear. We need them all, and with proper planning and management they make a comprehensive energy strategy.

If we could get to 30% of our electricity provided by wind and solar by 2035 that would be monumental. Forget get about the AOC and Kamala lunacy.
 

CJsE

Freshman
Mar 5, 2016
1,957
1,230
113
this isnt a revelation. the cost to produce install and maintain is the issue. who said the sun was expensive?

the dem legislation here in nv won't let you purchase panels and become free from the grid. they require a cap on 80% production on what i can install on my own roof while forcing me to lease the equipment for 40k. homeowners arenr signing up for this here.

do cloudy parts of the country live in the dark or does everyone move to az and nv.

once again joey you post incomplete inaccurate data based on theory not reality
That's only if you want to be completely off-grid, nothing is stopping you from installing a solar system that sells excess power back to the grid at 95% retail price and taking advantage of the $thousands in incentives that the state offers.
 

joeydavid

Head Coach
Feb 5, 2003
11,945
5,655
113
no you arent read your post moron. you are wondering why it cant be done

now you cant comprehend your own posts moron
Let's try this again-

It makes no sense to limit someone's utilization of solar; governmental or otherwise.

Or

No clue why you couldn't add solar to your house in the manner you want.

Either way, I meant i agree with you.
 

wolf0717

Freshman
Gold Member
Jul 12, 2009
1,238
554
113
Let's try this again-

It makes no sense to limit someone's utilization of solar; governmental or otherwise.

Or

No clue why you couldn't add solar to your house in the manner you want.

Either way, I meant i agree with you.
What no windmills to grow your hemp around.
 

caleco's

Assistant Coach
Gold Member
Nov 16, 2005
9,226
4,811
113
That's only if you want to be completely off-grid, nothing is stopping you from installing a solar system that sells excess power back to the grid at 95% retail price and taking advantage of the $thousands in incentives that the state offers.

who said you couldn't put it on your house dip$hit? 40k for panels you RENT
do you get that part?? you pay 40k to RENT panels. explain to me how someone recoups 40k of 80% of 200 a month?

my kids, kids will be dead before that shows a return.

such fools on this board
 
  • Like
Reactions: superstein61a

superstein61a

Senior
Mar 31, 2019
4,054
2,418
113
Tough break for fossil fuels.

Solar is now ‘cheapest electricity in history’, confirms IEA

The world’s best solar power schemes now offer the “cheapest…electricity in history” with the technology cheaper than coal and gas in most major countries.

That is according to the International Energy Agency’s World Energy Outlook 2020. The 464-page outlook, published today by the IEA, also outlines the “extraordinarily turbulent” impact of coronavirus and the “highly uncertain” future of global energy use over the next two decades.

Reflecting this uncertainty, this year’s version of the highly influential annual outlook offers four “pathways” to 2040, all of which see a major rise in renewables. The IEA’s main scenario has 43% more solar output by 2040 than it expected in 2018, partly due to detailed new analysis showing that solar power is 20-50% cheaper than thought.

 
  • Like
Reactions: caleco's

caleco's

Assistant Coach
Gold Member
Nov 16, 2005
9,226
4,811
113
I think solar roofs are going to solve the land issue. Many people will be ae to power their homes and cars from just their roofs. That's my plan. Extra power can be sent back into the grid for others to consume.
absolutely but my dem gov WONT allow this. you cant even buy the panels.

ideally a home should pay for the panels have unrestricted production and SELL all their overages back to the grid. homes would have zero bills while gaining income from those who aren't on that yet. the utility would be broken up into an entity that just services lines and equipment and doesnt sell power for profit.

instead we have to be hamstrung to not put the power company out of business, pay for needless jobs and pay a steep mark up on power.

thank you dumb dem gov
 

HailtoPitt

Chancellor
Jun 18, 2001
22,786
6,173
113
absolutely but my dem gov WONT allow this. you cant even buy the panels.

ideally a home should pay for the panels have unrestricted production and SELL all their overages back to the grid. homes would have zero bills while gaining income from those who aren't on that yet. the utility would be broken up into an entity that just services lines and equipment and doesnt sell power for profit.

instead we have to be hamstrung to not put the power company out of business, pay for needless jobs and pay a steep mark up on power.

thank you dumb dem gov
That's why I say Dems are full of it. Most are pretend liberals who just want the left's vote, but promise their wealthy donors the real change, or lack thereof. I have to laugh when Trump tries to imply that Biden will ban fracking. Lol.
 

caleco's

Assistant Coach
Gold Member
Nov 16, 2005
9,226
4,811
113
That's why I say Dems are full of it. Most are pretend liberals who just want the left's vote, but promise their wealthy donors the real change, or lack thereof. I have to laugh when Trump tries to imply that Biden will ban fracking. Lol.

i dont care if joe does or doesnt but i have an issue with his pamdering to his base. then saying he never said it when there are dozens examples of it. its the double speak of all politicians that drives me nuts. just shows how dishonest they are
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: BPKY and NCPitt

CJsE

Freshman
Mar 5, 2016
1,957
1,230
113
absolutely but my dem gov WONT allow this. you cant even buy the panels.

ideally a home should pay for the panels have unrestricted production and SELL all their overages back to the grid. homes would have zero bills while gaining income from those who aren't on that yet. the utility would be broken up into an entity that just services lines and equipment and doesnt sell power for profit.

instead we have to be hamstrung to not put the power company out of business, pay for needless jobs and pay a steep mark up on power.

thank you dumb dem gov
I would honestly be interested in seeing the laws on this. I have had to work on residential solar proposals in a few states and they have always fallen into 2 categories. Outright purchase (cash or financed) with a net-metering program or panel leasing, which the customer usually doesn't pay a dime upfront (also doesn't get the tax benefits) but have a set price that they purchase the electricity produced from the panel owner.

So hearing that there is a government mandated restriction that forces a homeowner to spend $40k upfront on a leased system is a first for me.
 

CJsE

Freshman
Mar 5, 2016
1,957
1,230
113
absolutely but my dem gov WONT allow this. you cant even buy the panels.

ideally a home should pay for the panels have unrestricted production and SELL all their overages back to the grid. homes would have zero bills while gaining income from those who aren't on that yet. the utility would be broken up into an entity that just services lines and equipment and doesnt sell power for profit.

instead we have to be hamstrung to not put the power company out of business, pay for needless jobs and pay a steep mark up on power.

thank you dumb dem gov
And now I'm 99% sure that you're full of shit after a 30 second google search.

Nevada was one of the first states to pass a "Renewable Energy Bill of Rights in 2017."

Nevada AB405 passed unanimously in state congress and signed into law by the governor on June 15, 2017. It provides that all residents have the right to "generate, consume and export renewable energy and reduce his or her use of electricity that is obtained from the grid. "

It also established net metering guidelines that all utilities must follow and compensate Nevada residents according to the tiers established by the state.
 

caleco's

Assistant Coach
Gold Member
Nov 16, 2005
9,226
4,811
113
And now I'm 99% sure that you're full of shit after a 30 second google search.

Nevada was one of the first states to pass a "Renewable Energy Bill of Rights in 2017."

Nevada AB405 passed unanimously in state congress and signed into law by the governor on June 15, 2017. It provides that all residents have the right to "generate, consume and export renewable energy and reduce his or her use of electricity that is obtained from the grid. "

It also established net metering guidelines that all utilities must follow and compensate Nevada residents according to the tiers established by the state.

when did i say you couldn't have solar in nv? you could do panels here dating back to 2008.
man you are thick and cant comprehend anything

you didnt read the fine print and the restrictions on production and leasing

you are only allowee to install 80% of your usage. you cant sell back. you only get credits if you produce more in lower usage months. its a loss
 
Last edited:

BPKY

Athletic Director
Dec 7, 2008
16,853
8,172
113
when did i say you couldn't have solar in nv? you could do panels here dating back to 2008.
man you are thick and cant comprehend anything

you didnt read the fine print and the restrictions on production and leasing

you are only allowee to install 80% of your usage. you cant sell back. you only get credits if you produce more in lower usage months. its a loss
Interesting. I come across hundreds of UCC solar leases on title in connection with refinance loans nationally, mainly CA and AZ; but I can't recall ever seeing one filed for a property in Nevada.
 

caleco's

Assistant Coach
Gold Member
Nov 16, 2005
9,226
4,811
113
Interesting. I come across hundreds of UCC solar leases on title in connection with refinance loans nationally, mainly CA and AZ; but I can't recall ever seeing one filed for a property in Nevada.
thats because we went 5 years without new installations while the legislatiom was debated.
 

CJsE

Freshman
Mar 5, 2016
1,957
1,230
113
when did i say you couldn't have solar in nv? you could do panels here dating back to 2008.
man you are thick and cant comprehend anything

you didnt read the fine print and the restrictions on production and leasing

you are only allowee to install 80% of your usage. you cant sell back. you only get credits if you produce more in lower usage months. its a loss
If you are really serious about getting solar and not just trolling, then I'd suggest calling up a certified installer because it seems like you are working with outdated information. Residential solar in Nevada was dead for years, but that doesn't seem to be remotely the case anymore.

After the Solar Bill of Right passed, Nevada jumped to 5th in the US in total residential solar installations in 2017 and 3rd in the country in 2018 (behind only California and Florida). I can't find a ranking for 2019, but residents installed almost triple the amount from 2018.

Residential solar is so popular in Nevada now that they already blew past their initial round of incentives and net metering allotments. People that installed solar in 2017-2019 were able to sign 20-year contracts to get paid 95% of retail electricity price on power sent to the grid. That number now looks like it is down to 81% of retail.

They also removed the state tax rebate program because they found it unnecessary for continued growth, but federal tax incentives are still available at 26% of installation cost this year and 24% next year before losing it completely in 2022 unless Biden is elected.
 

Zeldas Open Roof

Athletic Director
Gold Member
Sep 18, 2018
15,636
17,705
113
Its all in the assumptions. The fact that utilities wouldn't invest a dime without massive subsidies and credits should give you the real answer.

And I'm all for solar, wind, hydro, fossils and nuclear. We need them all, and with proper planning and management they make a comprehensive energy strategy.

If we could get to 30% of our electricity provided by wind and solar by 2035 that would be monumental. Forget get about the AOC and Kamala lunacy.
this is a great post and i'd have to imagine most people, libs and republicans, feel the same. i'd love to have a large portion of our country's energy needs met by renewable energy sources. i just think this all or nothing take by many democrats is beyond naive and foolish to the point where it will do much more harm than good..

like Gunga said, if we can even get 1/3rd of our energy met by 2035 from renewables, then that's wonderful. If miraculously its more, then even better. Everyone with a brain in their head wants this just many of us realize there are obstacles and can look at it objectively and not ignore the negatives that are currently coming with this transition.
 

pittbb80

Athletic Director
Oct 9, 2004
18,734
12,996
113
this is a great post and i'd have to imagine most people, libs and republicans, feel the same. i'd love to have a large portion of our country's energy needs met by renewable energy sources. i just think this all or nothing take by many democrats is beyond naive and foolish to the point where it will do much more harm than good..

like Gunga said, if we can even get 1/3rd of our energy met by 2035 from renewables, then that's wonderful. If miraculously its more, then even better. Everyone with a brain in their head wants this just many of us realize there are obstacles and can look at it objectively and not ignore the negatives that are currently coming with this transition.
Its called science...........Gunga is one of the few on this board who actually has a grasp of the topic.
 

Gunga_Galunga

Junior
Jan 12, 2017
3,453
4,048
113
Frankly, it's kind of like lockdowns. Yeah, if everyone locks themselves in their basement the virus spread will slow significantly. But, its not a practical or realistic option because the negatives end up far outweighing the positives.

Yeah, we could try to switch to 100% renewables by some fictitious date, but it's not going to happen and we'll destroy our country trying.

It's what pisses me off about you "have to follow the science" comments. Umm, no you don't. Scientists and medical professionals have opinions geared towards their expertise. They don't factor in all the other variable that are affected. A scientist or medical professional has no friggin clue about the economy, unemployment, availability of goods, trade, deficits, and a host of other things.
 

pittbb80

Athletic Director
Oct 9, 2004
18,734
12,996
113
Frankly, it's kind of like lockdowns. Yeah, if everyone locks themselves in their basement the virus spread will slow significantly. But, its not a practical or realistic option because the negatives end up far outweighing the positives.

Yeah, we could try to switch to 100% renewables by some fictitious date, but it's not going to happen and we'll destroy our country trying.

It's what pisses me off about you "have to follow the science" comments. Umm, no you don't. Scientists and medical professionals have opinions geared towards their expertise. They don't factor in all the other variable that are affected. A scientist or medical professional has no friggin clue about the economy, unemployment, availability of goods, trade, deficits, and a host of other things.
Great Post.............welcome addition to the locker room

As an aside you might find this interesting.

 
  • Like
Reactions: Gunga_Galunga

Gunga_Galunga

Junior
Jan 12, 2017
3,453
4,048
113
Great Post.............welcome addition to the locker room

As an aside you might find this interesting.

Good read, thanks.
 

BPKY

Athletic Director
Dec 7, 2008
16,853
8,172
113
Frankly, it's kind of like lockdowns. Yeah, if everyone locks themselves in their basement the virus spread will slow significantly. But, its not a practical or realistic option because the negatives end up far outweighing the positives.

Yeah, we could try to switch to 100% renewables by some fictitious date, but it's not going to happen and we'll destroy our country trying.

It's what pisses me off about you "have to follow the science" comments. Umm, no you don't. Scientists and medical professionals have opinions geared towards their expertise. They don't factor in all the other variable that are affected. A scientist or medical professional has no friggin clue about the economy, unemployment, availability of goods, trade, deficits, and a host of other things.
Which is why we should only listen to Fauci & Co. when speaking to treatments, infection data, and treatment effectiveness, but stop him immediately when he starts opining on public policy. But that's not in the best interest of the leftwing sky is falling party.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gunga_Galunga

recruitsreadtheseboards

Lair Hall of Famer
Gold Member
Jun 11, 2006
65,183
44,749
113
Tough break for fossil fuels.

Solar is now ‘cheapest electricity in history’, confirms IEA

The world’s best solar power schemes now offer the “cheapest…electricity in history” with the technology cheaper than coal and gas in most major countries.

That is according to the International Energy Agency’s World Energy Outlook 2020. The 464-page outlook, published today by the IEA, also outlines the “extraordinarily turbulent” impact of coronavirus and the “highly uncertain” future of global energy use over the next two decades.

Reflecting this uncertainty, this year’s version of the highly influential annual outlook offers four “pathways” to 2040, all of which see a major rise in renewables. The IEA’s main scenario has 43% more solar output by 2040 than it expected in 2018, partly due to detailed new analysis showing that solar power is 20-50% cheaper than thought.

Wow. Consider the source much?

Yeah. What are solar panels made from? Silicon. Sand. 2nd most abundant element on earth. Simple right? Sun and Sand!! WEEEEE Solar Energy is like a day at the beach.

Except how does sand become silicon which becomes solar panels? Not so simple. And not so green. It is an incredibly energy intensive process. You are turning sand into quartz, and metallurgical grade Si which is processed in high temperature furnaces over 1200 deg C. In many cases, you have feed gases of SiO2 and SiO4 that have hydrogen introduced in a super heated furnace of around 1500 deg C, to grow Silicon boules. The materials lining these furnaces are usually some form of graphite product, because the graphite has to be fairly pure and is one of the few materials that can take that kind of heat and without chemical attack.

Oh do you know how to make graphite? It takes off byproducts of petroleum processing (cokes) and steel making (pitches bitches) and let's see, you form them, then bake them at 1000 deg C to set the carbon structure and remove hydro carbons (which find their way into the atmosphere) and then.....you bake them at 3000 deg C (that's Celsius which is about 5500 deg F) so imagine the energy needed to make graphite. This is only to make structural components of a Si crystal growing furnace.

Again, you are growing crystals in these graphite furnaces at 1500 deg C, (more energy, more off gassing) then......the Si material is processed to usually a halogen sweeping gas at around 2000 deg C to drive off impurities (metals, alkalides, halides, etc...) to you get 99.999999999 (that's Nine 9's) percent purity to make the solar panels and semiconductor type of material.

Then you need land to build these solar farms.

Now because of the tremendous energy used to produce the materials to just make the panels along with the carbon products which inevitably turn to CO, CO2, CH4, etc...(aka "greenhouse gases" hello ozone, we are comin' for ya) we moved most manufacturing of these materials from the US and Europe so we can participate in Greta Thunberg's press conference and Paris Accord's to China and Malaysia where evidently greenhouse gasses don't matter or at least air pollution doesn't matter.

Now because of all this, they are obviously working on different, less energy and carbon dependent processes to make Silicon and also are working with other materials that possible can be used to make solar panels.

So cheaper? I doubt that? Clean and Green? I know that it isn't. I do believe in Renewables and think it is obviously important and imperative to continue to develop alternative sources as demand continues to increase as population and reliance on technologies increases. But "carbon neutral" by 2035? No way. And oh by the way, the above.....is not taken from some article, it is not opinion, it is what actually happens. I live this, every day.
 

Zeldas Open Roof

Athletic Director
Gold Member
Sep 18, 2018
15,636
17,705
113
Wow. Consider the source much?

Yeah. What are solar panels made from? Silicon. Sand. 2nd most abundant element on earth. Simple right? Sun and Sand!! WEEEEE Solar Energy is like a day at the beach.

Except how does sand become silicon which becomes solar panels? Not so simple. And not so green. It is an incredibly energy intensive process. You are turning sand into quartz, and metallurgical grade Si which is processed in high temperature furnaces over 1200 deg C. In many cases, you have feed gases of SiO2 and SiO4 that have hydrogen introduced in a super heated furnace of around 1500 deg C, to grow Silicon boules. The materials lining these furnaces are usually some form of graphite product, because the graphite has to be fairly pure and is one of the few materials that can take that kind of heat and without chemical attack.

Oh do you know how to make graphite? It takes off byproducts of petroleum processing (cokes) and steel making (pitches bitches) and let's see, you form them, then bake them at 1000 deg C to set the carbon structure and remove hydro carbons (which find their way into the atmosphere) and then.....you bake them at 3000 deg C (that's Celsius which is about 5500 deg F) so imagine the energy needed to make graphite. This is only to make structural components of a Si crystal growing furnace.

Again, you are growing crystals in these graphite furnaces at 1500 deg C, (more energy, more off gassing) then......the Si material is processed to usually a halogen sweeping gas at around 2000 deg C to drive off impurities (metals, alkalides, halides, etc...) to you get 99.999999999 (that's Nine 9's) percent purity to make the solar panels and semiconductor type of material.

Then you need land to build these solar farms.

Now because of the tremendous energy used to produce the materials to just make the panels along with the carbon products which inevitably turn to CO, CO2, CH4, etc...(aka "greenhouse gases" hello ozone, we are comin' for ya) we moved most manufacturing of these materials from the US and Europe so we can participate in Greta Thunberg's press conference and Paris Accord's to China and Malaysia where evidently greenhouse gasses don't matter or at least air pollution doesn't matter.

Now because of all this, they are obviously working on different, less energy and carbon dependent processes to make Silicon and also are working with other materials that possible can be used to make solar panels.

So cheaper? I doubt that? Clean and Green? I know that it isn't. I do believe in Renewables and think it is obviously important and imperative to continue to develop alternative sources as demand continues to increase as population and reliance on technologies increases. But "carbon neutral" by 2035? No way. And oh by the way, the above.....is not taken from some article, it is not opinion, it is what actually happens. I live this, every day.
ok, who hacked Recruits account? I understood like 6 words in this..

Well done recruits, im just messing with you. i know you are a smart dude but you outdid yourself on this one..
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: BPKY and ONGB

HailtoPitt

Chancellor
Jun 18, 2001
22,786
6,173
113
Wow. Consider the source much?

Yeah. What are solar panels made from? Silicon. Sand. 2nd most abundant element on earth. Simple right? Sun and Sand!! WEEEEE Solar Energy is like a day at the beach.

Except how does sand become silicon which becomes solar panels? Not so simple. And not so green. It is an incredibly energy intensive process. You are turning sand into quartz, and metallurgical grade Si which is processed in high temperature furnaces over 1200 deg C. In many cases, you have feed gases of SiO2 and SiO4 that have hydrogen introduced in a super heated furnace of around 1500 deg C, to grow Silicon boules. The materials lining these furnaces are usually some form of graphite product, because the graphite has to be fairly pure and is one of the few materials that can take that kind of heat and without chemical attack.

Oh do you know how to make graphite? It takes off byproducts of petroleum processing (cokes) and steel making (pitches bitches) and let's see, you form them, then bake them at 1000 deg C to set the carbon structure and remove hydro carbons (which find their way into the atmosphere) and then.....you bake them at 3000 deg C (that's Celsius which is about 5500 deg F) so imagine the energy needed to make graphite. This is only to make structural components of a Si crystal growing furnace.

Again, you are growing crystals in these graphite furnaces at 1500 deg C, (more energy, more off gassing) then......the Si material is processed to usually a halogen sweeping gas at around 2000 deg C to drive off impurities (metals, alkalides, halides, etc...) to you get 99.999999999 (that's Nine 9's) percent purity to make the solar panels and semiconductor type of material.

Then you need land to build these solar farms.

Now because of the tremendous energy used to produce the materials to just make the panels along with the carbon products which inevitably turn to CO, CO2, CH4, etc...(aka "greenhouse gases" hello ozone, we are comin' for ya) we moved most manufacturing of these materials from the US and Europe so we can participate in Greta Thunberg's press conference and Paris Accord's to China and Malaysia where evidently greenhouse gasses don't matter or at least air pollution doesn't matter.

Now because of all this, they are obviously working on different, less energy and carbon dependent processes to make Silicon and also are working with other materials that possible can be used to make solar panels.

So cheaper? I doubt that? Clean and Green? I know that it isn't. I do believe in Renewables and think it is obviously important and imperative to continue to develop alternative sources as demand continues to increase as population and reliance on technologies increases. But "carbon neutral" by 2035? No way. And oh by the way, the above.....is not taken from some article, it is not opinion, it is what actually happens. I live this, every day.
 

Latest posts