Sustainable companies

Post by Edward Prochak
LEGO reaches 100% renewable energy target three years ahead of schedule
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/lego-renewable-energy-green-wind-farm-burbo-bank-extension-offshore-irish-sea-climate-change-a7746696.html
Think about it. Sustainability is not an increased cost as
many companies want to portray.

A company is using 100% renewable energy only if, at every moment of
time, the energy it is using comes from a renewable energy source.

Offsetting energy consumed from non-renewable resources with energy
produced at other times from renewable resources is not 100% renewable use.

To claim that it is is fraudulent, and it falsely suggests that everyone
could do that, when that is clearly impossible.

If people want to claim they're using only renewable energy, then let
them turn their appliances and equipment off whenever renewable sources
cannot generate enough power. Otherwise they should shut-up about it.

Sylvia.

Edward Prochak

2019-05-24 01:27:14 UTC

A company is using 100% renewable energy only if, at every moment of
time, the energy it is using comes from a renewable energy source.

Yes.

Post by Sylvia Else
Offsetting energy consumed from non-renewable resources with energy
produced at other times from renewable resources is not 100% renewable use.

Yes.

Post by Sylvia Else
To claim that it is is fraudulent, and it falsely suggests that everyone
could do that, when that is clearly impossible.

You seem to be implying that Lego did not achieve its goal.
This is not like you Sylvia. Do you have evidence that Lego
did not reach their goal?

Post by Sylvia Else
If people want to claim they're using only renewable energy, then let
them turn their appliances and equipment off whenever renewable sources
cannot generate enough power. Otherwise they should shut-up about it.
Sylvia.

Actually, the article lacks any clear supporting evidence
for their claim. But I expect it is not just publicity.
They are investing in renewables.

Do you really mean to disparage Lego for trying to
do the right thing?
Ed

Sergeio

2019-05-24 01:38:21 UTC

A company is using 100% renewable energy only if, at every moment of
time, the energy it is using comes from a renewable energy source.

Yes.

Post by Sylvia Else
Offsetting energy consumed from non-renewable resources with energy
produced at other times from renewable resources is not 100% renewable use.

Yes.

Post by Sylvia Else
To claim that it is is fraudulent, and it falsely suggests that everyone
could do that, when that is clearly impossible.

You seem to be implying that Lego did not achieve its goal.
This is not like you Sylvia. Do you have evidence that Lego
did not reach their goal?

Actually, the article lacks any clear supporting evidence
for their claim. But I expect it is not just publicity.
They are investing in renewables.
Do you really mean to disparage Lego for trying to
do the right thing?
Ed

lego is buying companies in solar power, good luck, bad investment in
the long run..
https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnparnell/2019/03/29/lego-buys-u-s-solar-power-builder/

Sylvia Else

2019-05-24 01:47:49 UTC

A company is using 100% renewable energy only if, at every moment of
time, the energy it is using comes from a renewable energy source.

Yes.

Post by Sylvia Else
Offsetting energy consumed from non-renewable resources with energy
produced at other times from renewable resources is not 100% renewable use.

Yes.

Post by Sylvia Else
To claim that it is is fraudulent, and it falsely suggests that everyone
could do that, when that is clearly impossible.

You seem to be implying that Lego did not achieve its goal.
This is not like you Sylvia. Do you have evidence that Lego
did not reach their goal?

I have no reason to doubt that they have achieved 100% offset.

Post by Edward Prochak
Do you really mean to disparage Lego for trying to
do the right thing?

I question whether it's the "right thing". A company can only achieve
100% offset as long as others are not.

"Think about it. Sustainability is not an increased cost as
many companies want to portray."

That comment suggests that everyone could do this. Well, everyone
couldn't - it's impossible.

Sylvia.

r***@gmail.com

2019-05-24 01:57:13 UTC

Post by Sylvia Else
That comment suggests that everyone could do this. Well, everyone
couldn't - it's impossible.
Sylvia.

Never mind whether anything's been done or not. The real question is it to be something that's only going to be generated by one provider for the masses (i.e. a single point of failure and single point of attack for anyone going after infrastructure) or is it something in which the means of generation are to be distributed to all to have for their own, without the need for any hook-ups to centralized grids? Even fusion has that same issue.

We have more than enough of the centralized-provider paradigm already; we don't need even more of it. We need more of the decentralized DIY provider paradigm.

Sylvia Else

2019-05-24 05:32:58 UTC

Post by r***@gmail.com

Post by Sylvia Else
That comment suggests that everyone could do this. Well, everyone
couldn't - it's impossible.
Sylvia.

Never mind whether anything's been done or not. The real question is it to be something that's only going to be generated by one provider for the masses (i.e. a single point of failure and single point of attack for anyone going after infrastructure) or is it something in which the means of generation are to be distributed to all to have for their own, without the need for any hook-ups to centralized grids? Even fusion has that same issue.
We have more than enough of the centralized-provider paradigm already; we don't need even more of it. We need more of the decentralized DIY provider paradigm.

Not sure it this relates to the OP, but anyway...

We don't know what issues fusion will ultimately have, given that net
power generation from fusion hasn't been achieved. It might ultimately
be possible for everyone to have their own fusion generator, though
probably not in our lifetimes, and maybe never.

One problem with decentralised power is that each person, or small
grouping, needs to have the capacity to supply their peak load. This is
expensive to do. Even if it's achieved using batteries, the constant
cycling wears them out quickly, so that the cost of replacement is incurred.

Sylvia.

Edward Prochak

2019-05-28 17:31:41 UTC

Post by r***@gmail.com

Post by Sylvia Else
That comment suggests that everyone could do this. Well, everyone
couldn't - it's impossible.
Sylvia.

Never mind whether anything's been done or not. The real question is it to be something that's only going to be generated by one provider for the masses (i.e. a single point of failure and single point of attack for anyone going after infrastructure) or is it something in which the means of generation are to be distributed to all to have for their own, without the need for any hook-ups to centralized grids? Even fusion has that same issue.
We have more than enough of the centralized-provider paradigm already; we don't need even more of it. We need more of the decentralized DIY provider paradigm.

Not sure it this relates to the OP, but anyway...
We don't know what issues fusion will ultimately have, given that net
power generation from fusion hasn't been achieved. It might ultimately
be possible for everyone to have their own fusion generator, though
probably not in our lifetimes, and maybe never.
One problem with decentralised power is that each person, or small
grouping, needs to have the capacity to supply their peak load. This is
expensive to do. Even if it's achieved using batteries, the constant
cycling wears them out quickly, so that the cost of replacement is incurred.
Sylvia.

Earth based Fusion reactors might be nice, but I like to point out that
we have a sustaining reactor just 8 light minutes away. Solar power is
globally available, and so could be decentralized.

Expenses must include all the costs, including pollution, costs of
extracting power (which for fossil fuels will continue to go up as
the reserves are drawn down), and others.

I prefer to be an optimist on this issue. But world events make me wonder.

Ed

j***@specsol.spam.sux.com

2019-05-28 17:58:45 UTC

Post by r***@gmail.com

Post by Sylvia Else
That comment suggests that everyone could do this. Well, everyone
couldn't - it's impossible.
Sylvia.

Never mind whether anything's been done or not. The real question is it to be something that's only going to be generated by one provider for the masses (i.e. a single point of failure and single point of attack for anyone going after infrastructure) or is it something in which the means of generation are to be distributed to all to have for their own, without the need for any hook-ups to centralized grids? Even fusion has that same issue.
We have more than enough of the centralized-provider paradigm already; we don't need even more of it. We need more of the decentralized DIY provider paradigm.

Not sure it this relates to the OP, but anyway...
We don't know what issues fusion will ultimately have, given that net
power generation from fusion hasn't been achieved. It might ultimately
be possible for everyone to have their own fusion generator, though
probably not in our lifetimes, and maybe never.
One problem with decentralised power is that each person, or small
grouping, needs to have the capacity to supply their peak load. This is
expensive to do. Even if it's achieved using batteries, the constant
cycling wears them out quickly, so that the cost of replacement is incurred.
Sylvia.

Earth based Fusion reactors might be nice, but I like to point out that
we have a sustaining reactor just 8 light minutes away. Solar power is
globally available, and so could be decentralized.

Sure, it is globally available, during the day in clear weather.

Battery storage for those other times is hardly sustainable.

Sustainable storage, e.g. water pumping, would be difficult if not impossible
to decentralize.

Post by Edward Prochak
Expenses must include all the costs, including pollution, costs of
extracting power (which for fossil fuels will continue to go up as
the reserves are drawn down), and others.

Thank you Captain Obvious.

Post by Edward Prochak
I prefer to be an optimist on this issue. But world events make me wonder.
Ed

--
Jim Pennino

Edward Prochak

2019-05-28 17:24:46 UTC

[]

Post by Sylvia Else
"Think about it. Sustainability is not an increased cost as
many companies want to portray."
That comment suggests that everyone could do this. Well, everyone
couldn't - it's impossible.
Sylvia.

Again you are going overboard. Your comment suggests that sustainable
energy use is impossible. While true in the long term (on order of the
lifetime of the sun), it is certainly possible for our world. There is
enough solar energy received on the surface of earth to power our needs.
It is only a matter of finding efficient means of converting that power
to easily usable forms.

j***@specsol.spam.sux.com

2019-05-28 17:39:55 UTC

[]

"It is only a matter of finding..." or in other words, currently impossible.

It is only a matter of finding a cure for the common cold before the
common cold is eliminated.

It is only a matter of finding a solution acceptable to all before there
is peace in the Middle East.

It is only a matter of finding a working design for a fusion reactor.

--
Jim Pennino

Sergeio

2019-05-29 00:15:20 UTC

[]

"It is only a matter of finding..." or in other words, currently impossible.
It is only a matter of finding a cure for the common cold before the
common cold is eliminated.
It is only a matter of finding a solution acceptable to all before there
is peace in the Middle East.
It is only a matter of finding a working design for a fusion reactor.

most of the solar panel research was *finished* in the early 80's after
Jimmy Carter's misteps with OPEC. there has been little improvement in
design since then.

Solar panels decrease yield with time, Cheap China has a lifetime of 7
years, best panels are 20 years, Gov. states 30 year max, the problems
are that the silicon degrades with sunlight, the seals degrade with 02
and water, etc. ( *this is all old news folks* ) then there is the
pollution factor, and the gov subsidty factor, and the land use factor...

best bet seems to be underwater water mills, not fully explord yet,
tought environemnt, but mass of water moving at low speed is huge.

benj

2019-05-29 02:20:56 UTC

[]

"It is only a matter of finding..." or in other words, currently impossible.
It is only a matter of finding a cure for the common cold before the
common cold is eliminated.
It is only a matter of finding a solution acceptable to all before there
is peace in the Middle East.
It is only a matter of finding a working design for a fusion reactor.

most of the solar panel research was *finished* in the early 80's after
Jimmy Carter's misteps with OPEC. there has been little improvement in
design since then.
Solar panels decrease yield with time, Cheap China has a lifetime of 7
years, best panels are 20 years, Gov. states 30 year max, the problems
are that the silicon degrades with sunlight, the seals degrade with 02
and water, etc. ( *this is all old news folks* ) then there is the
pollution factor, and the gov subsidty factor, and the land use factor...

Actually own and have used a high end solar panel (got it for Y2k)
started to have serious degradation after about 5 years or so. And note
this panel was actually protected by a second glass enclosure. Glass
developed crud. Seals degraded. Output down. At 20 years this panel
would have very low output compared to new. AT 3 years deep cycle
battery died. Solar may work fine for driveway lights but for serious
power, it's all warmballer fantasy and lies. Hell. I was THERE!

Post by Sergeio
best bet seems to be underwater water mills, not fully explord yet,
tought environemnt, but mass of water moving at low speed is huge.

Sergeio

2019-05-29 03:15:15 UTC

[]

"It is only a matter of finding..." or in other words, currently impossible.
It is only a matter of finding a cure for the common cold before the
common cold is eliminated.
It is only a matter of finding a solution acceptable to all before there
is peace in the Middle East.
It is only a matter of finding a working design for a fusion reactor.

most of the solar panel research was *finished* in the early 80's after
Jimmy Carter's misteps with OPEC. there has been little improvement in
design since then.
Solar panels decrease yield with time, Cheap China has a lifetime of 7
years, best panels are 20 years, Gov. states 30 year max, the problems
are that the silicon degrades with sunlight, the seals degrade with 02
and water, etc. ( *this is all old news folks* ) then there is the
pollution factor, and the gov subsidty factor, and the land use factor...

I got one from a Ham radio dude, it looked ok and put out about 20 watts
peak, but slowly started getting water or water vapor instrusing in from
the edge of the pannel, seperating the layers, the seal was going, and
after owning for 3 years, it was junk for the landfill. (paid $30 ?)

I operated a small cold floresent light in the garage with it, the light
is still going, has about 10 years on it, like a super night light. 1
foot long white flouresent about .25 inch in diameter.

Post by Sergeio
best bet seems to be underwater water mills, not fully explord yet,
tought environemnt, but mass of water moving at low speed is huge.

benj

2019-05-29 06:08:41 UTC

[]

"It is only a matter of finding..." or in other words, currently impossible.
It is only a matter of finding a cure for the common cold before the
common cold is eliminated.
It is only a matter of finding a solution acceptable to all before there
is peace in the Middle East.
It is only a matter of finding a working design for a fusion reactor.

most of the solar panel research was *finished* in the early 80's after
Jimmy Carter's misteps with OPEC. there has been little improvement in
design since then.
Solar panels decrease yield with time, Cheap China has a lifetime of 7
years, best panels are 20 years, Gov. states 30 year max, the problems
are that the silicon degrades with sunlight, the seals degrade with 02
and water, etc. ( *this is all old news folks* ) then there is the
pollution factor, and the gov subsidty factor, and the land use factor...

I got one from a Ham radio dude, it looked ok and put out about 20 watts
peak, but slowly started getting water or water vapor instrusing in from
the edge of the pannel, seperating the layers, the seal was going, and
after owning for 3 years, it was junk for the landfill. (paid $30 ?)
I operated a small cold floresent light in the garage with it, the light
is still going, has about 10 years on it, like a super night light. 1
foot long white flouresent about .25 inch in diameter.

Got mine new (over $200!) Was sort of a standard size for these big
panels. Put out about 2 amps (3 on a bright day) to charge a big 12 volt
marine battery. As you say about 20 watts. Battery was very unhappy
charging at this low current and died after a couple years. Obviously
ideas of running a whole house (water tank, furnace, washer, drier, etc
are TOTAL and UTTER fantasy. Plan was to get enough to run small lights
at night and radios and TV for communication. Got a big 30 amp fossil
fuel generator to use if you really need to run the washer. Anyway I
mounted the panel behind a glass storm door so it had an extra layer of
protection. STILL after about 5 years in spite of door glass was
developing discoloration and seals going. I doubt it would have been
useful at 20 years.

All the greens are just living in some TDS bubble. No touch with reality
at all. They think that if they can imagine it, that it suddenly becomes
true science. Now for small stuff solar is great. I bought a Chinese LED
solar porch light (so you could see the steps at night) Been working
great after a couple years. And if it dies, no biggie. $20 gets you
another one.

Stupid greens think that if you just spend lots of tax money somehow
solar panels will get better and better. They have no science clue that
there are theoretical limits to panel efficiency and it's been pushed
pretty close already. Fantasy does not change laws of physics (except in
the fake news).

Edward Prochak

2019-05-29 16:28:25 UTC

On Wednesday, May 29, 2019 at 2:08:44 AM UTC-4, benj wrote:
[]

Post by benj
Got mine new (over $200!) Was sort of a standard size for these big
panels. Put out about 2 amps (3 on a bright day) to charge a big 12 volt
marine battery. As you say about 20 watts. Battery was very unhappy
charging at this low current and died after a couple years.

Poor baby, using 150 year old lead acid battery technology and
complaining about how poorly it works.

[]

Post by benj
Stupid greens think that if you just spend lots of tax money somehow
solar panels will get better and better. They have no science clue that
there are theoretical limits to panel efficiency and it's been pushed
pretty close already. Fantasy does not change laws of physics (except in
the fake news).

Ignoring the arguments over tax subsidies (oil gets them too BTW).

You are ignoring the laws of physics in that there is no new oil.
There is a finite amount which all your arguments fails to consider.

Enjoy chewing on that for a while.
Now back to work.

Ed

j***@specsol.spam.sux.com

2019-05-29 17:21:32 UTC

Poor baby, using 150 year old lead acid battery technology and
complaining about how poorly it works.

The service life of latest technology batteries is not significantly
better than lead acid batteries.

Ignoring the arguments over tax subsidies (oil gets them too BTW).
You are ignoring the laws of physics in that there is no new oil.
There is a finite amount which all your arguments fails to consider.

Never heard of abiogenic petroleum I take it.

The idea that oil and gas comes from dinosaurs was abandoned some time ago.

You are aware, aren't you, that benzene and propane have been found on
Mars by the Curiosity Rover?

--
Jim Pennino

Edward Prochak

2019-05-30 16:33:02 UTC

Post by Edward Prochak
You are ignoring the laws of physics in that there is no new oil.
There is a finite amount which all your arguments fails to consider.

Never heard of abiogenic petroleum I take it.

Of course I have.

Post by j***@specsol.spam.sux.com
The idea that oil and gas comes from dinosaurs was abandoned some time ago.

Did I say dinosaurs were the source? I only said the amount on earth
is finite. (Okay I left off "on earth" in my original comment.)

Post by j***@specsol.spam.sux.com
You are aware, aren't you, that benzene and propane have been found on
Mars by the Curiosity Rover?
--
Jim Pennino

Are you suggesting we drill on Mars?
Or maybe you want us to scoop it up in space?
http://sci.esa.int/iso/25880-iso-detects-benzene-in-space/

Again, the point is our entire economy is oil (hydrocarbon) driven
and hydrocarbons in the volume per year needed are depleting the
available sources on earth.

So switching to other sources are needed long term. I see the
best long term solution is some form of solar conversion.
I am not limiting it to solar panels. If fuel hydrocarbons from
algae (as once touted on BP ads) ends up the solution, then great.

Ed

j***@specsol.spam.sux.com

2019-05-30 17:02:22 UTC

Post by Edward Prochak
You are ignoring the laws of physics in that there is no new oil.
There is a finite amount which all your arguments fails to consider.

Never heard of abiogenic petroleum I take it.

Of course I have.

Post by j***@specsol.spam.sux.com
The idea that oil and gas comes from dinosaurs was abandoned some time ago.

Did I say dinosaurs were the source? I only said the amount on earth
is finite. (Okay I left off "on earth" in my original comment.)

Post by j***@specsol.spam.sux.com
You are aware, aren't you, that benzene and propane have been found on
Mars by the Curiosity Rover?
--
Jim Pennino

Are you suggesting we drill on Mars?

No, moron, I'm suggesting that "there is no new oil" is proven nonsense.

<snip drival>

--
Jim Pennino

Edward Prochak

2019-06-02 22:36:53 UTC

Post by Edward Prochak
You are ignoring the laws of physics in that there is no new oil.
There is a finite amount which all your arguments fails to consider.

Never heard of abiogenic petroleum I take it.

Of course I have.

Post by j***@specsol.spam.sux.com
The idea that oil and gas comes from dinosaurs was abandoned some time ago.

Did I say dinosaurs were the source? I only said the amount on earth
is finite. (Okay I left off "on earth" in my original comment.)

Post by j***@specsol.spam.sux.com
You are aware, aren't you, that benzene and propane have been found on
Mars by the Curiosity Rover?
--
Jim Pennino

Are you suggesting we drill on Mars?

No, moron, I'm suggesting that "there is no new oil" is proven nonsense.
<snip drival>
--
Jim Pennino

Even if abiogenic petroleum can bring new oil to the surface,
it needs to create it at a rate at least as great as the rate
we consume it. I suspect however that the abiogenic rate is
well below that target. Care to provide a reference to evidence
that the abiogenic generation can sustain us?

(Hint: Not likely, since the abiogenic hypothesis is not yet
established theory.)

Enjoy,
Ed

j***@specsol.spam.sux.com

2019-06-02 23:31:44 UTC

Post by Edward Prochak
You are ignoring the laws of physics in that there is no new oil.
There is a finite amount which all your arguments fails to consider.

Never heard of abiogenic petroleum I take it.

Of course I have.

Post by j***@specsol.spam.sux.com
The idea that oil and gas comes from dinosaurs was abandoned some time ago.

Did I say dinosaurs were the source? I only said the amount on earth
is finite. (Okay I left off "on earth" in my original comment.)

Post by j***@specsol.spam.sux.com
You are aware, aren't you, that benzene and propane have been found on
Mars by the Curiosity Rover?
--
Jim Pennino

Are you suggesting we drill on Mars?

No, moron, I'm suggesting that "there is no new oil" is proven nonsense.
<snip drival>
--
Jim Pennino

Even if abiogenic petroleum can bring new oil to the surface,

No one said anything about bringing oil to the surface.

Post by Edward Prochak
it needs to create it at a rate at least as great as the rate
we consume it. I suspect however that the abiogenic rate is
well below that target. Care to provide a reference to evidence
that the abiogenic generation can sustain us?

The natural process does not have to sustain us as petroleum can be,
and has been, produced artificially.

--
Jim Pennino

Edward Prochak

2019-06-03 17:35:40 UTC

[]

Post by Edward Prochak
Even if abiogenic petroleum can bring new oil to the surface,

No one said anything about bringing oil to the surface.

We were discussing sustainable energy sources.

The natural process does not have to sustain us as petroleum can be,
and has been, produced artificially.
--
Jim Pennino

So you seem to have switched to energy storage technology.
Petroleum certainly have a high energy density. It could be
part of a sustainable energy cycle. Was that your point???

(If so, you could have been clearer earlier in the thread.)

Ed

j***@specsol.spam.sux.com

2019-06-03 18:00:34 UTC

Post by Edward Prochak
Even if abiogenic petroleum can bring new oil to the surface,

No one said anything about bringing oil to the surface.

We were discussing sustainable energy sources.

The natural process does not have to sustain us as petroleum can be,
and has been, produced artificially.
--
Jim Pennino

So you seem to have switched to energy storage technology.

So you seem to be incapable of reading.

Post by Edward Prochak
Petroleum certainly have a high energy density. It could be
part of a sustainable energy cycle. Was that your point???

The point is that there is no reason to ever run out of oil.

Post by Edward Prochak
(If so, you could have been clearer earlier in the thread.)

OK, one more time, there is no reason to ever run out of oil.

--
Jim Pennino

Edward Prochak

2019-06-04 18:14:19 UTC

On Monday, June 3, 2019 at 2:01:26 PM UTC-4, ***@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
[]

Post by Edward Prochak
Petroleum certainly have a high energy density. It could be
part of a sustainable energy cycle. Was that your point???

The point is that there is no reason to ever run out of oil.

Post by Edward Prochak
(If so, you could have been clearer earlier in the thread.)

OK, one more time, there is no reason to ever run out of oil.

--
Jim Pennino

So unless you have some clearer explanation, I have to conclude
you believe in magic. Good luck with that.
Ed

j***@specsol.spam.sux.com

2019-06-04 18:18:25 UTC

Post by Edward Prochak
Petroleum certainly have a high energy density. It could be
part of a sustainable energy cycle. Was that your point???

The point is that there is no reason to ever run out of oil.

Post by Edward Prochak
(If so, you could have been clearer earlier in the thread.)

OK, one more time, there is no reason to ever run out of oil.

--
Jim Pennino

So unless you have some clearer explanation, I have to conclude
you believe in magic. Good luck with that.
Ed

The explaination is you do not believe in science and are just an
arm waving doom sayer.

--
Jim Pennino

Edward Prochak

2019-05-29 01:53:31 UTC

You in a bad mood too?
Because something is difficult doesn't make it impossible.

There are impossible things. Trying to run a global economy in the long term on a finite resource like fossil fuels is one example.
Ed

Sergeio

2019-05-29 01:56:17 UTC

Post by Edward Prochak
You in a bad mood too?
Because something is difficult doesn't make it impossible.
There are impossible things. Trying to run a global economy in the long term on a finite resource like fossil fuels is one example.
Ed

going to run a tanker on solar cells ?

you leave out the economics, cost, life cycle costs, cost of
infrastructure....

Sylvia Else

2019-05-31 12:08:28 UTC

[]

Again you are going overboard. Your comment suggests that sustainable
energy use is impossible.

No, I'm say that fully sustainable energy that way is impossible, and it
is. Any time a fossil fuel is burnt, there is some level of
unsustainability involved. So any "100%" sustainable solution for one
person that attempts to substitute a day-time solar power generation for
a night time coal power generation is pulling a swifty. Genuine 100%
sustainability cannot be achieved that way. It essence, it doesn't scale.

Unfortunately, there are people out there with votes who do not
understand the lack of scalability, and because of that think that
political decision making is being driven by "big oil, big coal" etc.,
rather than the practical realities we face. That distorts political
decision making which is rarely that rational at the best of times.

Sylvia.

Sergeio

2019-05-31 18:02:25 UTC

[]

Again you are going overboard. Your comment suggests that sustainable
energy use is impossible.

No, I'm say that fully sustainable energy that way is impossible, and it
is. Any time a fossil fuel is burnt, there is some level of
unsustainability involved. So any "100%" sustainable solution for one
person that attempts to substitute a day-time solar power generation for
a night time coal power generation is pulling a swifty. Genuine 100%
sustainability cannot be achieved that way. It essence, it doesn't scale.
Unfortunately, there are people out there with votes who do not
understand the lack of scalability, and because of that think that
political decision making is being driven by "big oil, big coal" etc.,
rather than the practical realities we face. That distorts political
decision making which is rarely that rational at the best of times.
Sylvia.

yep. limits of materials, corrossion over time, matching of coefficients
of expansion, UV dammage to materials, install costs, total lifetime
costs, battery costs + lifetimes....

big oil has nothing to do with it.

US navy ships at sea have a constant team of painters, painting the
ship, to prevent corrosion, if they miss the paint will rot off in 2
years and the rust degenerates the metal strength....

Edward Prochak

2019-06-02 22:23:47 UTC

[]

Again you are going overboard. Your comment suggests that sustainable
energy use is impossible.

As I understand it, LEGO is using wind.
But I see that your point is not the broad stroke
that I initially perceived.

Post by Sylvia Else
Unfortunately, there are people out there with votes who do not
understand the lack of scalability, and because of that think that
political decision making is being driven by "big oil, big coal" etc.,
rather than the practical realities we face. That distorts political
decision making which is rarely that rational at the best of times.
Sylvia.

I agree with that whole heartedly.
ed

Sergeio

2019-05-23 04:46:21 UTC

it is, the charge is always higher on the bill for it.

Sergeio

2019-05-28 23:48:20 UTC

obviously wrong.

If it was not an increasing cost, it would be in use now, it isn't.

Please include in your costs for renewable energy, the maintenance
costs, and replacement costs, you have to *replace everything* every 30
years. (materials rusting, solar panels degrading, etc. us gove has
guidelines on useful lifetime, China solar panels last just 7 years )

Edward Prochak

2019-05-29 01:57:00 UTC

Same old argument, Sergio. That thinking would have kept us
in the horse and buggy age.

Ed

Sergeio

2019-05-29 02:06:54 UTC

Post by Edward Prochak
Same old argument, Sergio. That thinking would have kept us
in the horse and buggy age.
Ed

no Ed, they are *hard boundaries*.

look at Solyndra, went bankrupt because their solar cells were too
expensive, even after Obama gave them 1/2 billion $ loan.

Reality => if it costs too much, people don't buy it. The company goes
out of business, and it is gone.

Also 1/2 the cost is for installation of the pannels

CLOSED SOLAR PANEL COMPANIES 2009 to 2013 (partial list)

2009 to 2010

Bankrupt, closed, acquired

Advent Solar (emitter wrap-through Si) acquired by Applied Materials
Applied Solar (solar roofing) acquired by Quercus Trust
OptiSolar (a-Si on a grand scale) closed
Ready Solar (PV installation) acquired by SunEdison
Solasta (nano-coaxial solar) closed
SV Solar (low-concentration PV) closed
Senergen (depositing silane onto free-form metallurgical-grade Si
substrates) closed
Signet Solar (a-Si) bankrupt
Sunfilm (a-Si) bankrupt
Wakonda (GaAs) closed

2011

Bankrupt, closed

EPV Solar (a-Si) bankrupt
Evergreen (drawn Si) bankrupt
Solyndra (CIGS) bankrupt
SpectraWatt (c-Si) bankrupt
Stirling Energy Systems (dish engine) bankrupt

Acquisition, sale

Ascent Solar (CIGS) acquired by TFG Radiant
Calyxo (CdTe) acquired by Solar Fields from Q.cells
HelioVolt (CIGS) acquired by Korea's SK Innovation
National Semiconductor Solar Magic (panel optimizers) exited systems
business
NetCrystal (silicon on flexible substrate) acquired by Solar
Semiconductor
Soliant (CPV) acquired by Emcore

2012

Bankrupt, closed

Abound Solar (CdTe) bankrupt
AQT (CIGS) closed
Ampulse (thin silicon) closed
Arise Technology (PV modules) bankrupt
Azuray (microinverters) closed
BP (c-Si panels) exits solar business
Centrotherm (PV manufacturing equipment) bankrupt
CSG (c-Si on glass) closed by Suntech
Day4 Energy (cell interconnects) delisted from TSX exchange
ECD (a-Si) bankrupt
Energy Innovations (CPV) bankrupt
Flexcell (a-Si roll-roll BIPV) closed
GlobalWatt (solar) closed
GreenVolts (CPV) closed
Global Solar Energy (CIGS) closed
G24i (DSCs) bankrupt in 2012, re-emerged as G24i Power with new
investors
Hoku (polysilicon) shut down its Idaho polysilicon production facility
Inventux (a-Si) bankrupt
Konarka (OSCs) bankrupt
Odersun (CIGS) bankrupt
Pramac (a-Si panels built with equipment from Oerlikon) insolvent
Pairan (Germany inverters) insolvent
Ralos (developer) bankrupt
REC Wafer (c-Si) bankrupt
Satcon (BoS) bankrupt
Schott (c-Si) exits c-Si business
Schuco (a-Si) shutting down its a-Si business
Sencera (a-Si) closed
Siliken (c-Si modules) closed
Skyline Solar (LCPV) closed
Siemens (CSP, inverters, BOS) divestment from solar
Solar Millennium (developer) insolvent
Solarhybrid (developer) insolvent
Sovello (Q.cells, Evergreen, REC JV) bankrupt
SolarDay (c-Si modules) insolvent
Solar Power Industries (PV modules) bankrupt
Soltecture (CIGS BIPV) bankrupt
Sun Concept (developer) bankrupt

Acquisition, fire sale, restructuring

Oelmaier (Germany inverters) insolvent, bought by agricultural
supplier Lehner Agrar
Q.Cells (c-Si) insolvent, acquired by South Korea's Hanwha
Sharp (a-Si) backing away from a-Si, retiring 160 of its 320
megawatts in Japan
Solibro (CIGS) Q-Cells unit acquired by China's Hanergy
Solon (c-Si) acquired by UAE's Microsol
Scheuten Solar (BIPV) bankrupt, then acquired by Aikosolar
SolFocus (CPV) layoffs, restructuring for sale
Sunways (c-Si, inverters) bought by LDK, restructuring to focus on
BIPV and storage

2013

Bankrupt, closed

Bosch (c-Si PV module) exits module business
Concentrator Optics (CPV) bankrupt
Suntech Wuxi (c-Si) bankrupt

Acquisition, sale, restructuring

Diehl (Germany inverters) inverter division sold to PE firm mutares AG
ISET (CIGS) moving into "microsolar"
MiaSolé (CIGS) acquired by China's Hanergy
Nanosolar (CIGS) restructuring for sale
NuvoSun (CIGS) acquired by Dow
Twin Creeks (kerfless Si) acquired by GT Advanced Technology
Wuerth Solar (installer) business turned over to BayWa

If we missed a firm, please, dear reader, let us know, and we'll amend
the list.

https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/Rest-in-Peace-The-List-of-Deceased-Solar-Companies

Edward Prochak

2019-05-29 16:16:39 UTC

Post by Edward Prochak
Same old argument, Sergio. That thinking would have kept us
in the horse and buggy age.
Ed

[]

Post by Sergeio
If we missed a firm, please, dear reader, let us know, and we'll amend
the list.
https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/Rest-in-Peace-The-List-of-Deceased-Solar-Companies

Failure rate for any start up is about 50%.
By your argument, the banking industry is in big trouble.

https://www.fdic.gov/bank/individual/failed/banklist.html

Here's a sample
Bank Name Closing Date
Washington Federal Bank for Savings 15-Dec-17
The Farmers and Merchants State Bank of Argonia 13-Oct-17
Fayette County Bank 26-May-17
Guaranty Bank, (d/b/a BestBank in Georgia & Michigan) 5-May-17
First NBC Bank 28-Apr-17
Proficio Bank 3-Mar-17
Seaway Bank and Trust Company 27-Jan-17
Harvest Community Bank 13-Jan-17

555 closed since 2000. Obviously the list is missing 2018.
so roughly 30 banks per year over 17 years.
Those bankers are in a doomed industry by your argument.

Here's the thing:
Long term, fossil fuel prices WILL rise as it is a very finite resource.
Long term, battery, fuel cell, solar panel and other energy
conversion technologies will improve. How much is the question.

Your real argument is the margin for improvement is limited.
Even buying your argument, sustainable technologies will improve
in cost over the long term.

Add in the costs of fossil fuels:
destroyed habitats throughout the world, such as
contaminated former oil fields sickening crops and people,
oil spills in oceans and beaches killing seafood sources,
petroleum products filling landfills and amassing in ocean zones.
(Note: specifically avoided climate change effects.)

Please be sure to add in environmental effects on all sides.
Yes Solar panels do contribute to environmental damage as well.
I'm not ignoring that. You have to ask yourself, how much of
the damage (aka costs) to the commons (our environment)
from fossil fuel industries that you are willing to ignore.

Ed

Sergeio

2019-05-30 00:58:40 UTC

Post by Edward Prochak
Same old argument, Sergio. That thinking would have kept us
in the horse and buggy age.
Ed

[]

Post by Sergeio
If we missed a firm, please, dear reader, let us know, and we'll amend
the list.
https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/Rest-in-Peace-The-List-of-Deceased-Solar-Companies

Failure rate for any start up is about 50%.
By your argument, the banking industry is in big trouble.
https://www.fdic.gov/bank/individual/failed/banklist.html
Here's a sample
Bank Name Closing Date
Washington Federal Bank for Savings 15-Dec-17
The Farmers and Merchants State Bank of Argonia 13-Oct-17
Fayette County Bank 26-May-17
Guaranty Bank, (d/b/a BestBank in Georgia & Michigan) 5-May-17
First NBC Bank 28-Apr-17
Proficio Bank 3-Mar-17
Seaway Bank and Trust Company 27-Jan-17
Harvest Community Bank 13-Jan-17
555 closed since 2000. Obviously the list is missing 2018.
so roughly 30 banks per year over 17 years.
Those bankers are in a doomed industry by your argument.
Long term, fossil fuel prices WILL rise as it is a very finite resource.
Long term, battery, fuel cell, solar panel and other energy
conversion technologies will improve. How much is the question.
Your real argument is the margin for improvement is limited.
Even buying your argument, sustainable technologies will improve
in cost over the long term.
destroyed habitats throughout the world, such as
contaminated former oil fields sickening crops and people,
oil spills in oceans and beaches killing seafood sources,
petroleum products filling landfills and amassing in ocean zones.
(Note: specifically avoided climate change effects.)
Please be sure to add in environmental effects on all sides.
Yes Solar panels do contribute to environmental damage as well.
I'm not ignoring that. You have to ask yourself, how much of
the damage (aka costs) to the commons (our environment)
from fossil fuel industries that you are willing to ignore.
Ed

Ha! (banks, mutual funds, stocks) lesson => keep a close eye on your
money !!

Edward Prochak

2019-05-30 16:35:06 UTC

[]

Post by Edward Prochak
555 closed since 2000. Obviously the list is missing 2018.
so roughly 30 banks per year over 17 years.
Those bankers are in a doomed industry by your argument.

[]

Ha! (banks, mutual funds, stocks) lesson => keep a close eye on your
money !!

See, we can agree on some things! 8^)

benj

2019-05-29 02:13:40 UTC

obviously wrong.
If it was not an increasing cost, it would be in use now, it isn't.
Please include in your costs for renewable energy, the maintenance
costs, and replacement costs, you have to *replace everything* every 30
years. (materials rusting, solar panels degrading, etc. us gove has
guidelines on useful lifetime, China solar panels last just 7 years )

Have to replace batteries MUCH more often than 30 years. Not cheap.
Create far more dire pollution making them than using fossil fuels would

Sylvia Else

2019-06-01 01:41:10 UTC

obviously wrong.
If it was not an increasing cost, it would be in use now, it isn't.
Please include in your costs for renewable energy, the maintenance
costs, and replacement costs, you have to *replace everything* every 30
years. (materials rusting, solar panels degrading, etc. us gove has
guidelines on useful lifetime, China solar panels last just 7 years )

Have to replace batteries MUCH more often than 30 years. Not cheap.
Create far more dire pollution making them than using fossil fuels would

A while back, I calculated that constructing lithium ion batteries to
handle the overnight load in Australia, on the assumption that there was
sufficient solar during the immediately preceding day to charge them,
would take the entire world output of lithium for a year. This for a
population of only about 25 million.

Given that the batteries would only last about ten years, there's
clearly a problem in scaling that world wide, and that's before we start
to concern ourselves with the extended periods of low sunshine that
happen in the real world.

So unless there's the practical possibility of increasing lithium output
by orders of magnitude (in a sustainable way!), using lithium ion
batteries as the solution to global warming is a non-starter.

Sylvia.

Sergeio

2019-06-01 04:46:55 UTC