-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Solar PV News
- Thread starter mspohr
- Start date
-
- Tags
- solar energy
SageBrush
REJECT Fascism
Of course it is. One page ago I wrote:
That is part of the problem you get to solve before the US Ag economy gives up the teat. And the vested interests do not end there. "Flex-fuel" ICE has been the go to solution for the Detroit automakers for a generation to reach CAFE fuel economy requirements. Do you see Biden pissing off the US car industry and its unions ? I don't either.
Last edited:
jimm01
Member
The largest man-made contributor to atmospheric to CO2 emissions is transportation. When one considers the energy sources used to manufacture and maintain the world’s transportation system this ratio increase. The first step is to become as carbon-neural as possible in emission sectors. To due this the value of a subsidy, its cost benefit ratio, must include an environmental competent. One based on CO2 production as well as other greenhouse gases.
The type of emission should include 'follow-on' emissions like the release of methanol during the production of fossil fuels and have added weight. In the near and long-term attributing the total cost of greenhouse gases into the environment/economic equation is the best way to subsidize the production and use of energy sources. By properly valuating the total cost we can determine a best value approach. One the can facilitate efficacies as production and demand levels increase. Overall efficiency must be a consideration as natural sources of greenhouse gases are increasing due rising average temperatures of the earth.
Reducing CO2 will require the capturing of carbon via manmade and natural means. At present levels greenhouse gases are exacerbating the release of natural sources of CO2. This is not a fight we can win fighting amongst ourselves. In any case, of the upmost importance is the reduction of our dependency on fossil fuels. We must do this as fast, and as efficiently and as effectively as possible, as they are not carbon-neutral, (at least if one doesn’t base their calculation on eons). This cannot be at “all deliberate speed” as we will at best tread water.
In my mind subsidies should be directed toward the most sustainable and enabling infrastructure with the greatest overall benefit. One that is cost effective, accounts for the total cost of ownership/emission, be fair, enables innovation, and is also robust and resilient. With environmental economics central to the equation. Decentralized power generation can help deliver many of these attributes. However, distribution systems can complicate the issue, they must also help achieve these same attributes. Public subsidies should first and foremost facilitate this architecture. We the people.
The type of emission should include 'follow-on' emissions like the release of methanol during the production of fossil fuels and have added weight. In the near and long-term attributing the total cost of greenhouse gases into the environment/economic equation is the best way to subsidize the production and use of energy sources. By properly valuating the total cost we can determine a best value approach. One the can facilitate efficacies as production and demand levels increase. Overall efficiency must be a consideration as natural sources of greenhouse gases are increasing due rising average temperatures of the earth.
Reducing CO2 will require the capturing of carbon via manmade and natural means. At present levels greenhouse gases are exacerbating the release of natural sources of CO2. This is not a fight we can win fighting amongst ourselves. In any case, of the upmost importance is the reduction of our dependency on fossil fuels. We must do this as fast, and as efficiently and as effectively as possible, as they are not carbon-neutral, (at least if one doesn’t base their calculation on eons). This cannot be at “all deliberate speed” as we will at best tread water.
In my mind subsidies should be directed toward the most sustainable and enabling infrastructure with the greatest overall benefit. One that is cost effective, accounts for the total cost of ownership/emission, be fair, enables innovation, and is also robust and resilient. With environmental economics central to the equation. Decentralized power generation can help deliver many of these attributes. However, distribution systems can complicate the issue, they must also help achieve these same attributes. Public subsidies should first and foremost facilitate this architecture. We the people.
Correct me if I am wrong, but ethanol farming is only profitable because of the federal mandate that a certain percent of all interstate gasoline sales must include ethanol, no? So, without the mandate no one would chose to buy ethanol correct?
SageBrush
REJECT Fascism
Ethanol is a lead replacement. I actually do not know if it in turn can be substituted. But ethanol production is subsidized so my guess to your question is no ... it gets used because it is "cheap."
Ethanol has slightly higher octane than gas so can be used to raise octane of cheap gas. However, it has 33% less energy than gas.
Home - SOLshare
A first mover in the latest clean-tech developments in Bangladesh, a high social impact market […]
me-solshare.com
SOLshare has created a revolutionary new approach to bring affordable solar electricity to everyone in Bangladesh and beyond. We believe that our smart peer to peer grids can be the future for energy utilities globally.
Ethanol is subsidized to give money to farmers, ensure sufficient production and to encourage increasing the proportion of ethanol in gas. Ethanol replaced MTBE which had replaced the use of lead, because MBTE had its own pollution problems. 7.5% ethanol would be enough for the oxygenation requirements, although 10% is typical and 15% is allowed.
Reinventing utility scale solar from the ground up – literally!
Erthos forgoes tracking mounts and installs utility-scale solar directly on the dirt.
pv-magazine-usa.com
I'm done with mounting systems. My latest arrays are literal ground mount. Just lay the panels on the ground. Shovel snow if necessary (or not - winter production is low anyway) but much cheaper.
Also tired of dealing with regulatory agencies which just delay and contribute nothing
SageBrush
REJECT Fascism
I thought you used power racks ?Reinventing utility scale solar from the ground up – literally!
Erthos forgoes tracking mounts and installs utility-scale solar directly on the dirt.
I'm done with mounting systems. My latest arrays are literal ground mount. Just lay the panels on the ground. Shovel snow if necessary (or not - winter production is low anyway) but much cheaper.
Also tired of dealing with regulatory agencies which just delay and contribute nothing
Yes, I'm trying a set of PowerRacks for an array. They are a minimalist racking system that looked attractive. I haven't installed them yet and the panels for them are currently flat on the ground (producing) until I can get the ground cleared for the PowerRacks. Should have better production and snow shedding since they are held at an angle but still close to the ground.
I do have another array that is flat on the ground and I have been happy with that.
We'll see.
Panels are cheap and I don't want to spend a lot on mounts.
SageBrush
REJECT Fascism
I'm in the middle of installing mine. My ground prep is on a hill and is more work but I think that part will be finished by Monday. Then it gets easy. I decided to use 3 powerRacks for every 2 panels. It works out to ~ $160 for 800 watts = 20¢ a watt pre tax credit. I think it is an easy choice if they work for your case.
I like the system, but be forewarned: the racks that carry combined panels have to be flush with each other, and flat is highly recommended. Small deviations cause headaches with the locking bracket.
Last edited:
California Public Utilities Commission's Clean Energy Order: Necessary, Timely, & Ambitious - CleanTechnica
Sign up for daily news updates from CleanTechnica on email. Or follow us on Google News! Originally published on NRDC Expert Blog. By Mohit Chhabra The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) adopted a decision to acquire 11.5 GW of mostly carbon-free electricity over the next five to...
cleantechnica.com
The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) adopted a decision to acquire 11.5 GW of mostly carbon-free electricity over the next five to seven years. This decision firmly places the state on course to getting to zero carbon electricity and a carbon neutral economy by 2045 for two reasons:
(1) it ensures that California’s growing electric load will be met by increasingly clean electricity; and
(2) it replaces Diablo Nuclear Power Plant with clean electricity to avoid unnecessary increase in polluting power plant operations due to Diablo retiring.
Thanks for this information. My site is a slope with lots of brush to be cleared. I'm using two buckets for each oversize panel. Hopefully it won't be too much hassle to get them lined up.
SageBrush
REJECT Fascism
Two buckets per panel is the easiest, but you will still want to work with a level. IIRC the buckets have to be within 0.5" of each other
SageBrush
REJECT Fascism
I may not have been clear. The buckets have to be aligned, but I was saying that they also have to be at the same height. They can be tilted a little, but then each bucket attached to another has to have the same tilt. I decided to dig little bays for each bucket so that they could lay level, and then I only have to make each bay at the same height as its attached neighbor. I made a simple level accessory out of wood to aid. I'll post a picture of it later
Thanks for this. As I clear brush, I'll be able to level the ground. I was planning to dig them into the ground a bit rather than just sitting on the surface.
How much weight (and what kind of fill) did you put in yours?
SageBrush
REJECT Fascism
First I add back the dirt I dug out for the bay, then I add rocks and some concrete scraps I have laying around. I shoot for a level fill about 3/4 to the front (lower) top. I also plan to put a piece a piece of wood in front of the bucket and then drive into the ground some rebar in front of the wood. No slippage is my motto. As an aside, like any project of PV rows, leave enough space between them to avoid one row shading another. Give a holler if you want a hand with the trig.
Looks good. It will be a few weeks before I can start on this project. I've got a few other pressing things to finish on my house first.
jimm01
Member
It's kind of a form of regulatory capture. The benefactors of the current paradigm do not want to upset the equilibrium, (or at least they want to “muddle through” it on their own terms). Which is difficult since there are competing interests. So in regard to public interest without some mechanism to facilitate change this will be slow undeliberate process as the “powers that be” attempt manage the disruption, (manage the disruption being a bit of an oxymoron). Think of a Nash Equilibrium where all the participants do not include all the participants or include the environment.Reinventing utility scale solar from the ground up – literally!
Erthos forgoes tracking mounts and installs utility-scale solar directly on the dirt.
I'm done with mounting systems. My latest arrays are literal ground mount. Just lay the panels on the ground. Shovel snow if necessary (or not - winter production is low anyway) but much cheaper.
Also tired of dealing with regulatory agencies which just delay and contribute nothing
Distributed and peer-to-peer electric energy upsets this paradigm. However, energy retailers, grid operators, power generators are locked in and cannot change unilaterally. Self-centered, mutual and public interest although not mutually exclusive are difficult to rebalance, especially in a closed captured system. This does not imply an open unmanaged system will provide favorable results. Especially if one considers time a significant coefficient in this unbalanced equation, the amount of inertia is already proving too difficult to overcome.
The current debate about privatization verses nationalism or quasi nationalism misses the point. There is so much we could be doing right now if the current profit motive include actual environmental cost. Think of a carbon tax as a reverse value added cost and a method of valuating renewable energy credits. Also, how a carbon tax could make the current equilibrium unprofitable and provide leverage for public and private investment in renewables. Given the time available it is best for public financing to address enabling and fundamental elements and use open competition to deliver services. However, we can never take the environment out of the equation.
Similar threads
