Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Wednesday, September 11, 2019

Solar thermal systems used winter sun to warm air or water that could reduce heating bills. Such systems now meet about 1% of global energy demand for heating. It's better than nothing, but hardly a solar revolution.

Advertisement

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

NO!!!!!

#1 | Posted by Sniper at 2019-09-11 11:26 AM | Reply

I'm all for solar as it is a nice supplemental energy source for some, depending where one lives in the country.

#2 | Posted by MSgt at 2019-09-11 12:01 PM | Reply

I heard that wind power is now cheaper than coal. Solar is definitely catching up. If your an outgdoors type you can buy a little scroll-case looking thing with an OLED in it - a flexible organic solar panel to recharge batteries for the laser-sight night-vision computerized scope on the Bambi-murder weapon you just upgraded.

#3 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2019-09-11 12:21 PM | Reply

Here's a summary of a report on solar energy from a source that promotes solar energy. Nonetheless, the numbers presented are interesting...

Solar Market Insight Report 2019 Q2
www.seia.org

It looks like private residential solar installations are doing better than larger-scale installations.

#4 | Posted by LampLighter at 2019-09-11 02:22 PM | Reply

Can solar power shake up the energy market?

Of course it can. Does the question even needs to be asked?

The power-wallas are getting less than half of what they got out of me. Make your own power... leave grid-power for industrial use. It's the most patriotic thing you can do for your country.

#5 | Posted by J_Tremain at 2019-09-11 02:53 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Any so called eco-warrior who won't even consider nuclear power (zero carbon emissions) isn't actually serious about reducing carbon emissions.

#6 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-09-11 03:00 PM | Reply

not true, jeff.

try growing up near Fermi 1. It gives you an interesting perspective on nuclear power.

#7 | Posted by Alexandrite at 2019-09-11 03:02 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"nuclear power (zero carbon emissions)"

Any other kind of emissions from nuclear power that might be harmful, JeffJ?

Go Fukushima yourself.

#8 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-09-11 03:14 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

Solar Market Insight Report 2019 Q2
www.seia.org

It looks like private residential solar installations are doing better than larger-scale installations.

#4 | Posted by LampLighter

And all thanks to the US taxpayer for the subsidies.

#9 | Posted by Sniper at 2019-09-11 03:37 PM | Reply

@#9 ... And all thanks to the US taxpayer for the subsidies. ....

What subsidies do oil companies receive?
www.fuelfreedom.org

...It seems like every day there's a new think piece out there decrying the subsidies that renewable energy, alternative fuels, and the vehicles that can run them receive. Yet when it comes to the substantial government assistance for oil companies, those same critics are conspicuously silent.

This silence becomes all the more questionable when you consider that many such freebies have been on the books for more than a century.

It's one thing to offer support to a fledgling industry that's in the national interest, it's quite another to continue to prop up an industry that owns a whopping 92% market share of the transportation fuels marketplace, decade after decade.,

Congress and the ethanol industry understood that subsidies should be appropriately phased out for established industries when they eliminated the ethanol subsidy in 2011. Similarly, wind and solar power subsidies are set to phase out in 2019 and 2022, respectively. However, oil companies continue to be subsidized at a rate of 7-1 compared to permanent tax breaks that go to renewable energy.

This is not to claim that other energy interests do not receive any favored treatment. However, it is notable that an industry so dominant in its market continues to receive such substantial taxpayer support....



#10 | Posted by LampLighter at 2019-09-11 03:57 PM | Reply

Advertisement

Advertisement

"It's one thing to offer support to a fledgling industry that's in the national interest, it's quite another to continue to prop up an industry that owns a whopping 92% market share of the transportation fuels marketplace, decade after decade."

This is the part where JeffJ says he opposes ALL subsidies, while continuing to vote for politicians who subsidize things.

#11 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-09-11 04:26 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

When it comes to solar, and wind energy productions, all is not rosy: Germany's green transition has hit a brick wall
wattsupwiththat.com

These first few paragraphs are very telling:

"Even worse, its growing problems with wind and solar spell trouble all over the globe

More people are finally beginning to realize that supplying the world with sufficient, stable energy solely from sun and wind power will be impossible.

Germany took on that challenge, to show the world how to build a society based entirely on "green, renewable" energy. It has now hit a brick wall. Despite huge investments in wind, solar and biofuel energy production capacity, Germany has not reduced CO2 emissions over the last ten years. However, during the same period, its electricity prices have risen dramatically, significantly impacting factories, employment and poor families."

Do take time to read the rest of the Dec 18 article.

#12 | Posted by MSgt at 2019-09-11 05:03 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Aren't most parts of solar panels still petroleum based for manufacture? Feel like until we get past using that for all our plastics and chemicals, we're only fighting half the battle.

Not that that's not better than not fighting at all.

Omg, too many negatives to edit. Read at your own risk.

#13 | Posted by zeropointnrg at 2019-09-11 05:04 PM | Reply

Watts Up With That? (WUWT) is a blog[1] promoting climate change denial[7] that was created by Anthony Watts in 2006.[2][3]
en.wikipedia.org

#14 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-09-11 05:09 PM | Reply

try growing up near Fermi 1. It gives you an interesting perspective on nuclear power.

#7 | Posted by Alexandrite

I used to live in Carleton, MI. In fact, when I was a kid and just before they started to fuel the reactor, my cousin was working for one of the electrical contractors and he arranged for a tour of the facility which included a chance to walk inside of the containment structure. I was about 15 years old at the time and remember how they talked about how this plant, the first (and last) commercial fast-breeder reactor, was going to produce so much nuclear fuel as a byproduct, that the actual production of electricity would be virtually free. Of course that was before the core almost melted-down in 1966, which gave the world the 'China Syndrome' expression.

OCU

#15 | Posted by OCUser at 2019-09-11 05:50 PM | Reply

Have you read
"We Almost Lost Detroit"
www.amazon.com

#16 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-09-11 05:53 PM | Reply

snoofy- i was gonna link to that and got busy.

thanks.

#17 | Posted by Alexandrite at 2019-09-11 05:54 PM | Reply

A new nuclear power plant takes 10 years to overtake the carbon foot print it takes to build it and mine the fuel and that doesn't include disposing of used fuel rods for centuries. Nuclear is death.

#18 | Posted by danni at 2019-09-11 07:49 PM | Reply

--Nuclear is death.

Good luck running a modern industrial society on windmills and solar panels.

#19 | Posted by nullifidian at 2019-09-11 07:57 PM | Reply

Any so called eco-warrior who won't even consider nuclear power (zero carbon emissions) isn't actually serious about reducing carbon emissions.

#6 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-09-11 03:00 PM | Reply

What a typical dummkopt

www.eia.gov

Nuclear power reactors do not produce direct carbon dioxide emissions
Unlike fossil fuel-fired power plants, nuclear reactors do not produce air pollution or carbon dioxide while operating. However, the processes for mining and refining uranium ore and making reactor fuel all require large amounts of energy. Nuclear power plants also have large amounts of metal and concrete, which require large amounts of energy to manufacture. If fossil fuels are used for mining and refining uranium ore, or if fossil fuels are used when constructing the nuclear power plant, then the emissions from burning those fuels could be associated with the electricity that nuclear power plants generate.

Nuclear energy produces radioactive waste
A major environmental concern related to nuclear power is the creation of radioactive wastes such as uranium mill tailings, spent (used) reactor fuel, and other radioactive wastes. These materials can remain radioactive and dangerous to human health for thousands of years. Radioactive wastes are subject to special regulations that govern their handling, transportation, storage, and disposal to protect human health and the environment. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) regulates the operation of nuclear power plants.

Radioactive wastes are classified as low-level waste or high-level waste. The radioactivity of these wastes can range from a little higher than natural background levels, such as for uranium mill tailings, to the much higher radioactivity of used (spent) reactor fuel and parts of nuclear reactors. The radioactivity of nuclear waste decreases over time through a process called radioactive decay. The amount of time it takes for the radioactivity of radioactive material to decrease to half its original level is called the radioactive half-life. Radioactive waste with a short half-life is often stored temporarily before disposal to reduce potential radiation doses to workers who handle and transport the waste. This storage system also reduces the radiation levels at disposal sites.

#20 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2019-09-11 08:36 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#20 That actually proved what I said.

Traditional power plants require a lot of energy to be constructed as well.

#21 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-09-11 09:00 PM | Reply

"Good luck running a modern industrial society on windmills and solar panels."

Good luck enjoying the affects of Fukishima for the next 100 years and you want to multiply that by what number? How many would it take to make the planet uninhabitable?

#22 | Posted by danni at 2019-09-11 09:13 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Thank you for the Junior High School lesson about nuclear power Laura. Do you even know the half[-lives of some of the nuclear material we are dealing with? It isn't a decade. It's centuries.
Now, if nuclear energy is so safe then why will no insurance company insure them. You do realize that the federal government has to basically subsidize every nuclear power plant by insuring them with taxpayer dollars. How many Fukishimas can our government afford to cover?
And, all the while we have solar and wind along with geothermal and who knows whatever new energy sources we'll find. Who would have thought in the year that I graduated from high school, 1969, that today we'd have more powerful computers in our pockets than even existed in that year, the same year we landed on the moon? The future is coming faster and at a faster rate of change all the time. We will develop safe, cheap, alternative energy sources beyond our wildest dreams of today in the next decades.

Also

"Germany has not reduced CO2 emissions over the last ten years. "

Despite this good news the country is certain to miss its 2020 target of reducing emissions by 40 percent over 1990. Germany's Environment Ministry announced Tuesday that the country emitted 4.2 percent less carbon dioxide in 2018 than it did in 2017. The figure represents a 30.6 percent drop over 1990.Apr 2, 2019"
www.google.com

#23 | Posted by danni at 2019-09-11 09:24 PM | Reply

I do consulting on green energy financing - here are some facts.

1.) Solar and wind are NOT more efficient than thermal (coal, gas) if you ignore green subsidies and negative externalities (pollution)
2.) Wind IS NOT more cost effective than solar for a vast majority of the planet. For a typical 'utility scale project' - which would be 50MW, you are looking at $1,500,000/MW for Solar and $2,000,000+/MW for wind. Also, as these are new technologies, we don't really know the long term operating costs. Solar panels lose efficiency and wind turbines seem to lose about 15%/decade of use - but again, these are estimated
3.) Solar footprint to displace thermal is GIGANTIC - whether using PV panels or reflective mirrors

The ONLY way that these technologies are cost effective is if there are government subsidies - and these can take various forms. One of the most cost efficient ways to subsidize is via government guaranteed debt financing. The reality is that these projects usually sign up for a 10 - 20 year electrical supply contact - so, the debt should be relatively safe. The government could step in and guarantee so rates could be in the 4% range.

All that said and with a lot of experience in the industry, I think solar and wind are just solutions for the next 20 years. Technology will ultimately make them obsolete and my bet is on geothermal. We need to drill about 10,000meters (depending on crust thickness) to get the pressure and temperature you need for geothermal production. What will get us there is the drilling advancements brought on by the fracking industry. I think within 20 years, we will be using that technology to install geothermal turbines all over the US and make solar, wind, and even oil obsolete.

#24 | Posted by iragoldberg at 2019-09-11 10:21 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

#23 | POSTED BY DANNI

And in the process, they are bringing about their own recession by spiking consumer costs, lowering disposable income, and hammering their heavy industries upon which their export focused economy relies. All this, and China + India increased their carbon emissions by 10x+ what the Germans reduced. But hey, thanks for taking one for the team Germany....doesn't atone for WW2, but keep up the good work.

#25 | Posted by iragoldberg at 2019-09-11 10:25 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

I do consulting on green energy financing

And I wrote all of Freddie Mercury's music.

i.postimg.cc

A sock-puppet of TOR/SPORK.... Faking a Jewish name just so you can act like a bastard with a tiny brain, is the most anti-Semitic thing one has done on the Retort in recent memory.

Keep it up TOR-SPORK/Ira-fakejew-Goldberg.

#26 | Posted by J_Tremain at 2019-09-12 12:56 AM | Reply

And I wrote all of Freddie Mercury's music.
#26 | POSTED BY J_TREMAIN

With the sub-50% literacy rate of your -------- country, I am assuming that your cousin-wife does all of your writing for you.

#27 | Posted by iragoldberg at 2019-09-12 08:09 AM | Reply

LOL... it took you a whole day to think up that comeback???

Make some more tall claims, will you?

"I do consulting on green energy financing"... LOL!

i.postimg.cc

#28 | Posted by J_Tremain at 2019-09-12 08:24 AM | Reply

#28 | POSTED BY J_TREMAIN

A whole day? More like I have other things to do than to stay on this board all day and night because my cousin-wife is so damn repulsive. I would ask you to actually respond to the points I posted, but given your abnormal chromosome count and general lack of literacy, I know that is beyond your abilities.

#29 | Posted by iragoldberg at 2019-09-12 09:32 AM | Reply

#28 | POSTED BY J_TREMAIN

A whole day? More like I have other things to do than to stay on this board all day and night because my cousin-wife is so damn repulsive. I would ask you to actually respond to the points I posted, but given your abnormal chromosome count and general lack of literacy, I know that is beyond your abilities.

#30 | Posted by iragoldberg at 2019-09-12 09:32 AM | Reply

Look at FakeJew! He is so rattled he is double-posting! LOL

Hurts when you are exposed, don't it?

Also notice how it takes all his energy to make pathetic comebacks has IRA-GOLDBERG... he has no energy left to post as TOR or SPORK!

#31 | Posted by J_Tremain at 2019-09-12 09:55 AM | Reply

I have other things to do than to stay on this board all day and night

Like "I do consulting on green energy financing"???

via GIPHY

#32 | Posted by J_Tremain at 2019-09-12 09:57 AM | Reply

When it comes to our supplemental energy programs, here's a problem area that is never talked about: When green energy isn't so green: Retiring worn-out wind turbines is a wasteful process
www.theblaze.com

I found it an interesting read and there are problems associated with wind energy I've never heard/thought about before.

#33 | Posted by MSgt at 2019-09-12 02:26 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Any so called eco-warrior who won't even consider nuclear power (zero carbon emissions) isn't actually serious about reducing carbon emissions.

#6 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

That's pretty absurd.

#34 | Posted by jpw at 2019-09-13 02:28 PM | Reply

20 That actually proved what I said.

Traditional power plants require a lot of energy to be constructed as well.

#21 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

Everything does, which is why we'll probably never be fully free from fossil fuels and it won't happen quickly at first until production infrastructure makes gains sufficient to start reducing fossil fuel input into the cycle.

Maybe it won't ever, I don't know.

#35 | Posted by jpw at 2019-09-13 02:35 PM | Reply

When it comes to our supplemental energy programs, here's a problem area that is never talked about: When green energy isn't so green: Retiring worn-out wind turbines is a wasteful process
www.theblaze.com

I found it an interesting read and there are problems associated with wind energy I've never heard/thought about before.

#33 | Posted by MSgt

Hahah THE BLAZE!

I always wondered who was dumb enough to get their news there. Now I know.

You know that fossil fuel profiteers plant stories like these in places like that to keep their profits up dont you?

#36 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-09-13 04:26 PM | Reply

"You know that fossil fuel profiteers plant stories like these in places like that to keep their profits up dont you?

#36 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY "

No, I didn't now that. But I do know you make a lot of ---- up. Please cite your source.

#37 | Posted by goatman at 2019-09-13 04:29 PM | Reply

"No, I didn't now that."

You don't seem like such an old dog that you can't learn new tricks, Goatman, so here you go:

HOW THE MEDIA LAUNDERS FOSSIL FUEL INDUSTRY PROPAGANDA THROUGH BRANDED CONTENT theintercept.com

Tweet the Story of the Fossil Fuel Industry's Climate Deception
www.ucsusa.org

#38 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-09-13 05:22 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

No, I didn't now that. But I do know you make a lot of ---- up. Please cite your source.

#37 | Posted by goatman

Sure as long as once I cite the source and prove it, you promise to log off for 24 hours. Deal?

#39 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-09-13 05:49 PM | Reply

"Sure as long as once I cite the source and prove it, you promise to log off for 24 hours. Deal?

#39 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY"

No. You lie so much that you will cite a Skippy peanut butter ad and claim I'm a [fill in the blank with your childish names] for not recognizing it as proof. I won't play that game with you again.

#40 | Posted by goatman at 2019-09-13 05:51 PM | Reply

#6 | Posted by JeffJ

We need thorium and fusion is (still) coming. We've had six meltdowns already and there are three hundred rectors now, more coming.

Spent full rods are lethal for over 10,000 years, radioactive for over a million.

Thorium generates 3% of the waste, almost all low level, the worst stuff for only three hundred years.

#41 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2019-09-13 06:01 PM | Reply

"We need thorium and fusion is (still) coming.

POSTED BY HELIUMRAT AT 2019-09-13 06:01 PM "

You've got that right: "Still" coming.

When I took HS physics in the early '70s, nuclear fusion was cited to be only 10-15 years away. That's how far away it's been every since.

#42 | Posted by goatman at 2019-09-13 06:06 PM | Reply

No. You lie so much that you will cite a Skippy peanut butter ad and claim I'm a [fill in the blank with your childish names] for not recognizing it as proof. I won't play that game with you again.

#40 | Posted by goatman

Thanks for admitting you wont listen to proof anyway.
You had proof cited in #38. Was that a skippy peanut butter ad?

#43 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-09-13 06:29 PM | Reply

"Thanks for admitting you wont listen to proof anyway.

POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY "

I made no such admission.

Why do you lie so much?

#44 | Posted by goatman at 2019-09-13 06:37 PM | Reply

#44 | Posted by goatman

You had proof cited in #38. Was that a skippy peanut butter ad?

#45 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-09-13 07:31 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2019 World Readable

Drudge Retort