3 ms·

So you are saying solar power isn't reasonable, then point to a project using solar power to generate power from solar energy cheaply? And, fwiw, I wouldn't con

So you are saying solar power isn't reasonable, then point to a project using solar power to generate power from solar energy cheaply? And, fwiw, I wouldn't consider wind turbines to be using solar power (every non-nuclear source would be if I did), but the tower is specifically concentrating the heat from the sun to drive the turbines.

danielparks 15y ago
In the linked article, a 200 MW solar updraft installation is projected (by to the company that wants to build it) to cost $700 million. That works out of $3500/kW, which seems to be on par with construction costs for recent nuclear power plants (according to Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_of_new_nuclear_power_plants#Recent_construction_cost_estimates http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_of_new_nuclear_power_...) Of course, limiting the comparison to construction costs is silly.
mnemonicsloth 15y ago
My point was that people take an idealized view of solar power that causes them to see it as purely good, rather than as it really is: a mix of good and bad, like any real-world technology. In response, you call me out for attacking solar power (pointing out bad parts), and being inconsistent about it (pointing out good parts). So this reply looks like an example of the black-and-white thinking about solar power that I was complaining about above. I say "looks like" because I don't understand your second sentence. I agree with the all the facts you brought up, but I don't see the point of mentioning them. Please correct me if I'm missing something.
- oelewapperke 15y ago
  Of course the reality is that solar power is barely break-even in energy (power actually delivered to customers when they want it - cost (in watts) to produce ALL OF the infrastructure needed for that). In reality, solar power is a waste. A stupid diversion at best, the cause for starvation of lots of people (because of diverting energy from providing for real people). In reality, green kills. Given the denial that persists around this little inconvenient truth, we all know what the responses are going to be here. E.g. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article3500954.ece http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article350... Of course, it would be entirely unfair to blame the green party for killing millions. That'd be like blaming Bush for 9/11 ... oh wait ... loads of people do that.
chrisb 15y ago
Minor point, but tidal sources are also not solar-derived. And an advantage of tidal compared to most (all?) other renewables is that it is completely predictable. There are downsides, especially to do with ecological effects/damage during construction and operation.

danielparks 15y ago

In the linked article, a 200 MW solar updraft installation is projected (by to the company that wants to build it) to cost $700 million. That works out of $3500/kW, which seems to be on par with construction costs for recent nuclear power plants (according to Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_of_new_nuclear_power_plants#Recent_construction_cost_estimates http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_of_new_nuclear_power_...) Of course, limiting the comparison to construction costs is silly.

mnemonicsloth 15y ago

My point was that people take an idealized view of solar power that causes them to see it as purely good, rather than as it really is: a mix of good and bad, like any real-world technology. In response, you call me out for attacking solar power (pointing out bad parts), and being inconsistent about it (pointing out good parts). So this reply looks like an example of the black-and-white thinking about solar power that I was complaining about above. I say "looks like" because I don't understand your second sentence. I agree with the all the facts you brought up, but I don't see the point of mentioning them. Please correct me if I'm missing something.

oelewapperke 15y ago
Of course the reality is that solar power is barely break-even in energy (power actually delivered to customers when they want it - cost (in watts) to produce ALL OF the infrastructure needed for that). In reality, solar power is a waste. A stupid diversion at best, the cause for starvation of lots of people (because of diverting energy from providing for real people). In reality, green kills. Given the denial that persists around this little inconvenient truth, we all know what the responses are going to be here. E.g. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article3500954.ece http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article350... Of course, it would be entirely unfair to blame the green party for killing millions. That'd be like blaming Bush for 9/11 ... oh wait ... loads of people do that.

chrisb 15y ago

Minor point, but tidal sources are also not solar-derived. And an advantage of tidal compared to most (all?) other renewables is that it is completely predictable. There are downsides, especially to do with ecological effects/damage during construction and operation.