At 13:40 14-7-01 -0500, Dan Minette wrote:
>Second, as Zimmy had said, methodology can be checked. I've looked at the
>methodology of the green sites and it is virtually non-existant. No
>statistical analysis, only stories.
Dan, do you really expect every website to be a scientific website? Green
sites aren't aimed at scientists, they are aimed at the general public. You
can't fill a website with extensive scientific analyses if you want to
reach the general public -- a large part of the population does not have a
scientific background and would therefore not understand what was said on
that website. That's why green sites have to have stories -- so the public
can understand what's going on without having to get a degree in physiscs
first.
>According to your figures, it would cost about $30,000 up front to install
>just the solar cells to supply the electricity for a house in the
>Neatherlands. Add the cost for energy storage, and you can get closer to
>$60,000. That's just too much money for people to be able to afford it.
The system you are referring to is an autonomous photovoltaic system, which
does have storage capabilities. This system however is 3-4 times as
expensive as a net-connected system, which admittedly makes it too
expensive for most households.
The alternative is a complete net-connected system, which would cost ~USD
32,000. Still a lot of money, but affordable.
> If
>all of Europe were to go on such a system, assuming 4 person households, it
>would cost more than 11 trillion dollars.
First, I think households aren't that big anymore. IIRC, the average for
Western Europe (off the top of my head) is ~2.5 persons per household.
Second, it's not like one organisation has to pay all the costs -- every
household should pay for getting a solar power system. Third, we don't have
to get everyone on solar power within one year. It would actually be
impossible -- production and logistics wouldn't be able to keep up.
>Plus, there would be a significant maintaince cost.
I don't think those costs would be much (if any) higher than an other
system. Basically, you'll need someone to clean the panels a few times per
year, and check the hardware once a year. A few replacement parts every few
years, and that's it.
High maintenance costs? Yes, you'll get that for nuclear power plants. We
can't tear down the Dodewaard nuclear power plant for at least 40 years;
maintenance alone is expected to cost NLG 164 million. That's a lot of
money to spend maintaining something that doesn't produce energy anymore.
>Plus, there are all the environmental problems
>associated with the manufacture of solar panals. Why are those swept under
>the rug?
I doubt they are "swept under the rug". The problem is that the nuclear
lobby uses that argument to "prove" that we shouldn't switch to solar
power. I believe however that we should accept those problems because we'll
be better of in the long run.
With solar panels, it's like with bicycles. A bicycle factory will cause
pollution when producing bicycles, but we accept that because in the long
run the minimal environmental impact of bicycles outweighs the
environmental impact of production.
Jeroen
_________________________________________________________________________
Wonderful World of Brin-L Website: http://go.to/brin-l
