Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

"Poll: Solar Energy Issue Could Swing US Election"

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • "Poll: Solar Energy Issue Could Swing US Election"

    Are 27% of independent voters really this ignorant of basic physics?
    Poll: Solar Energy Issue Could Swing US Election
    March 24th, 2016 by Sandy Dechert

    In the upcoming US election, independent voters in the key swing states—the most influential of influential voting sectors—will be more likely to vote for a Republican candidate who vocally supports solar energy, according to a new poll by Public Opinion Strategies.

    When asked the question “If a Republican candidate for office showed more vocal support for increasing residential solar energy options, would you be more likely or less likely to vote for the Republican candidate, or would it make no difference to your vote?”
    68% responded “no difference.” However, over a quarter (27%) of independent voters—who are exceptionally hard to influence—said that solar campaigning by a Republican candidate would make them somewhat or much more likely to vote for the GOP. Only 5% said they would be less likely to do so—presumably the hard-core fossil fuel advocates.

    From Tyson Grinstead, spokesperson for the Alliance for Solar Choice and former Political Director for South Carolina Senior Senator and former Presidential candidate Lindsey Graham (R, SC):
    “Independent swing state voters may pick the next President. This poll shows solar energy is a key issue that could motivate them in November. In a particularly contentious election cycle, both parties should pay attention to any issue that can move this critical voting bloc.”

    Swing state independents of all demographic types—partisan, ideological, geographic, gender, and other groups—would almost unanimously like to see solar energy on the increase. Their reasons: to promote competition, provide more jobs, and decrease electricity rates. Also, about 6 in 10 (58%) are forceful in their commitment (strongly favor increasing it).

    [...]

    https://cleantechnica.com/2016/03/24...g-us-election/
    8
    Yes, because we have to save the climate.
    0.00%
    0
    Yes, because we have to fight the fossil fuels industry.
    12.50%
    1
    It doesn't make any difference.
    12.50%
    1
    No, because I didn't flunk Physics 101.
    75.00%
    6
    Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

  • #2
    So....Doc, what's wrong with promoting solar energy? Sorry that I couldn't vote on your poll. You're choices were a bit limited.
    ARRRR! International Talk Like A Pirate Day - September 19th
    IN MARE IN COELO

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Jose50 View Post
      So....Doc, what's wrong with promoting solar energy? Sorry that I couldn't vote on your poll. You're choices were a bit limited.
      There's nothing wrong with promoting it. People promote all sorts of useless things...
      Originally posted by The Doctor View Post
      In a nice complement to the Ivanpah solar fiasco...
      Time is running out for SunEdison.

      The Belmont, Calif.-based renewable energy giant has until March 30 to submit its 2015 annual report, a document the company has delayed filing twice already this year, Bloomberg reports. If SunEdison blows past a third deadline, it will have to begin negotiating with creditors on an outstanding $1.4 billion it has borrowed, lest the company confront technical default.

      [...]

      http://fortune.com/2016/03/24/sunedi...nting-default/

      While not a North American company, Abegnoa has been the recipient of beaucoup Maobamabucks and it is also teetering on a very green bankruptcy...
      One of the world's biggest renewable energy firms, Spain's Abengoa, said on Monday it had been given a seven-month breathing space by its creditors for restructuring that should stave off the threat of immediate bankruptcy.

      http://www.thelocal.es/20160328/cred...n-months-grace

      The really cool thing about utility scale solar power is the fact that it is an economic failure under all economic conditions... The laws of thermodynamics and orbital mechanics are immune to the economic theories, don't give a rat's @$$ about Gorebal Warming and not subject to revision by [email protected] with voter registration cards.

      Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

      Comment


      • #4
        Somehow, (I really don't know what tipped me off...) I get the impression that you don't think very highly of solar energy technology.
        ARRRR! International Talk Like A Pirate Day - September 19th
        IN MARE IN COELO

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Jose50 View Post
          Somehow, (I really don't know what tipped me off...) I get the impression that you don't think very highly of solar energy technology.
          The technology of solar power is very cool... Almost as cool as the Tesla Model S.

          I just think more highly of the laws of thermodynamics and orbital mechanics.
          Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

          Comment


          • #6
            Solar power wont replace other power supplies. But if every house had a solar water heater it could do a lot for there bill and save some power. But its not a big worry for me if poltistions push it or dont. Just dont stop me from doing it.
            you think you a real "bleep" solders you "bleep" plastic solders don't wory i will make you in to real "bleep" solders!! "bleep" plastic solders

            CPO Mzinyati

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by andrewza View Post
              Solar power wont replace other power supplies. But if every house had a solar water heater it could do a lot for there bill and save some power. But its not a big worry for me if poltistions push it or dont. Just dont stop me from doing it.
              I'm more focused on utility-scale solar power for electricity generation.

              If people think they can save money by using solar water heaters and rooftop solar panels, I'm OK with that...

              Just don't make me pay for it with higher taxes or higher electricity bills because the utility companies were forced to pay for it.
              Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

              Comment


              • #8
                As usual, a series of poll selections that fit Doc's agenda but do not relate to the issue in any way whatsoever.

                The government has no business meddling is any business venture, regardless of reason. Solar, which has failed miserably time after time, is no exception.
                Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

                Comment


                • #9
                  I am firmly in favor of solar power, particularly systems which employ, in some fashion, suitable young women sunbathing.
                  Any man can hold his place when the bands play and women throw flowers; it is when the enemy presses close and metal shears through the ranks that one can acertain which are soldiers, and which are not.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Solar power in many ways has great promise it just needs to be a little cheaper to install and the problems with integration into the grid worked out. It could be argued that subsidizing it slows these developments.
                    We hunt the hunters

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by wolfhnd View Post
                      Solar power in many ways has great promise it just needs to be a little cheaper to install and the problems with integration into the grid worked out. It could be argued that subsidizing it slows these developments.
                      Solar power at a utility scale will remain a total goat frack until orbital power stations become practical.

                      Distributed solar power (rooftop panels, etc.) are the responsibility of individuals who choose to pay for and install them. The taxpayers and other electricity consumers should not be burdened with the costs incurred by people dumb enough to pay for their electricity 20 years in advance.
                      Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by The Doctor View Post
                        The taxpayers and other electricity consumers should not be burdened with the costs incurred by people dumb enough to pay for their electricity 20 years in advance.
                        We all do that by adding insulation beyond what is required for comfort.
                        We hunt the hunters

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by wolfhnd View Post
                          We all do that by adding insulation beyond what is required for comfort.
                          That doesn't pay for the electricity in advance. It lowers the consumption of electricity. If the discounted cost of the investment has a quick payout horizon, it makes sense to spend the money.

                          Our new pool pump will pay itself off in less than 20 months because it runs at half the wattage of the old one.

                          When you install solar panels, you are literally paying for your electricity in advance, rather than as you consume it.
                          Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by wolfhnd View Post
                            We all do that by adding insulation beyond what is required for comfort.
                            I added insulation to my house, along with foil backing for the roof sheathing. That cost me less than $1000 and I did the install myself. That has paid back already in reduced electrical use for cooling. I added a load controller that cost me at the time $800. That's paid back several times over in managing electrical loads since I installed it.

                            Solar panels are just stupid. They have a service life of 10 to 20 years. The batteries associated with installations last maybe 5 in use. The whole thing would run me $15,000 and up in materials. The payback is anywhere from 15 to 20 years with utility subsidies.
                            It'd be worse if I used some contractor to install the panels for me. That is stupid. There is nearly no payback on solar, if any. They are a big pain in the @$$ to maintain. One good hail storm if you live where that happens with any frequency and your investment is now zero, or you get to watch your insurance take a huge hit for replacement.

                            Commercial solar is cost ineffective. Look at that monstrosity of a bird cooker / environmental disaster Ivanpah in California. It's a total fail on every level.

                            If solar were competitive, it wouldn't require 30 to 50% subsidies from the government continuously to make it so.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              This is from a solar power vendor...
                              Financial Return

                              If you like the idea of locking in your electricity costs at today’s rate, or believe hedging against energy volatility is a sound idea, generating some or all of your power from Solar Energy makes a compelling case. Please bear with us as we go through The Investment Return of Solar Energy.

                              A Solar installation is rated by the kilowatt – in our example, the system is 6.7kW (24 panels of 280 watts each). But the electricity we buy from our utility is priced in kilowatt-hours (kWh), so we need to calculate how much electricity our 6.7 kW system will generate.

                              Since there’s enough math going on here already, we’ll side-step the calculations leading to system output, and state that 1 kW of installed solar will generate about 1400 kWh of electricity in Houston. Thus, our 6.7 kW system will produce about 9,400 kWh of electricity over the course of a year.

                              A 6.7 kW array producing about 9,400 kWh of electricity costs just over $15,000 to install after the 30% federal tax credit.

                              Let’s also assume our electricity costs are $0.11 per kWh for electricity, therefore the 9,400 kWh your solar panels produce is worth a little over $1,000 a year.

                              So in this case, the investment return of solar energy (current return or yield) is 6.7% ($1,000/$15,000). In other words, sort of eye-popping when compared to alternative, safe investments. Also, consider the value of the energy produced by your system will rise over time as electricity rates increase, and will do so for as long as the sun rises… or the next 30-40 years, whichever comes first.


                              http://www.texassolaroutfitters.com/...ancial-return/

                              Firstly, this is a lie...
                              So in this case, the investment return of solar energy (current return or yield) is 6.7% ($1,000/$15,000). In other words, sort of eye-popping when compared to alternative, safe investments.

                              There is no return on investment or yield until the capital cost is recouped.

                              They say, "1 kW of installed solar will generate about 1400 kWh of electricity in Houston."
                              1 kW * 24 hr/d * 365 d/yr = 8,760 kWh
                              1,400 kWh / 8,760 kWh = 16%

                              A 16% capacity factor is not unreasonable.

                              A 6.7 kW system would generate 9,380 kWh per year with a 16% capacity factor.

                              At $0.11/kWh (what I pay), that electricity is worth $1,031.80 per year. The problem is that I paid $15,000 for it after the tax rebate. The actual cost of the system was more like $21,000. It is the equivalent of purchasing over 20 years worth of electricity in advance. Assuming the system lasts 20 years, it would just break even... And that's before applying a discount rate to the "investment."
                              Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X