The Best Car Ever Tested?

[Harry P.]

Yup. In a GRID-CONNECTED installation, the solar array or wind generator produce electricity when the sun is shining or the wind is blowing, and excess power generated is fed back to the grid...

It's possible to produce so much electricity via solar and/or wind, that a private residence could actually create more electricity than the family needs, and can sell the excess back to the utility. You could actually be paid by the electric company instead of you paying them! Of course, the upfront costs to install the systems would be high (and your house would have to be situated to take the best advantage of the sun and wind), but with government subsidies, I guess that after some years you'd make up your initial investment via lower electric bills... and from then on it's a free ride! Wouldn't be practical for everyone... but for some, it's feasible.

[vypurr59]

The batteries, that were quoted along with all the other stuff, was to completely go off grid. Looking back through those numbers now. The installation at the junkyard, was a grid install, with battery backup option, because of the generator he has, will not operate in winds greater than 20mph

http://www.pearlwind.com/turbine-press-coverage.html

here is a link to the wind generator, at the junkyard

[Ace-Garageguy]

It's possible to produce so much electricity via solar and/or wind, that a private residence could actually create more electricity than the family needs, and can sell the excess back to the utility. You could actually be paid by the electric company instead of you paying them! Of course, the upfront costs to install the systems would be high (and your house would have to be situated to take the best advantage of the sun and wind), but with government subsidies, I guess that after some years you'd make up your initial investment via lower electric bills... and from then on it's a free ride! Wouldn't be practical for everyone... but for some, it's feasible.

There are new business models being developed and implemented to overcome the high initial cost of going solar, and to make a profit while doing it. Again, it's out-of-the-box thinking that's going to bring solar mainstream.

One example is SunEdison (I have NO affiliation with them), a company with a proven track record (and sufficient capitalization to make it work) that provides complete solar generation packages to homeowners, INCLUDING attractive FINANCING. The days of $50,000+ out-of-pocket up-front investment are over.

http://www.sunedison.com/wps/portal/memc/homeowners/

Edited May 11, 2013 by Ace-Garageguy

[2002p51]

"Germany now has five times as much solar power as the U.S., despite the fact that the levels of sunshine it receives are more comparable to Alaska than Arizona, or even Florida (which is closer to Spain).

You're not the first person I've heard site Germany as using so much more solar than the U.S.

The fact is that even though that may be true, they still produce the vast majority of their energy from coal, lignite, natural gas, and nuclear.

http://www.euronuclear.org/info/encyclopedia/p/pow-gen-ger.htm

Solar, or "photovoltaic" makes up a mere 3.1% of Germany's total energy production, the least but for that produced by "domestic waste" and mineral oil.

[Harry P.]

Solar, or "photovoltaic" makes up a mere 3.1% of Germany's total energy production, the least but for that produced by "domestic waste" and mineral oil.

3% is better than 0%.

[2002p51]

3% is better than 0%.

True but the point is that saying Germany; ". . .has five times as much solar power as the U.S . . ." paints a picture that Germany is some sort of green energy utopia which is clearly not the case. The chart shows that they are still producing almost 75% of their energy by means that environmentalists consider "dirty". And they do that because it's still the cheapest way to keep the lights on.

[sjordan2]

Do I get college credit for following this thread? Or at least a certificate for attending?

[Ace-Garageguy]

True but the point is that saying Germany; ". . .has five times as much solar power as the U.S . . ." paints a picture that Germany is some sort of green energy utopia which is clearly not the case. The chart shows that they are still producing almost 75% of their energy by means that environmentalists consider "dirty". And they do that because it's still the cheapest way to keep the lights on.

Using a pencil and paper was cheaper for adding 2+2 than calculators when they entered the market. Horses were cheaper than cars for transportation early on. And it was "cheaper" to live in caves than to build shelters. Cheaper to eat your food raw than to cook it, too.

It would seem "cheaper" isn't the only motive humankind has for doing things (though I sometimes wonder if that's still the case).

Edited May 11, 2013 by Ace-Garageguy

[JM485]

^{I learned more from this thread than my entire senior year of high school.}

[Harry P.]

Alternative energy sources are in their infancy as far as infrastructure. But just wait. It won't be long before they are more than a viable alternative to the "old way." Our grandkids will learn about the days when we used oil and coal for power and have a good laugh.

Like I said before... you don't have to spend billions to explore and try to find wind or solar. It's right there for the taking, it'll never run out, and we don't have to buy either one from countries that control prices–and don't like us.

People used to ride horses to get anywhere. Along came cars and the world was changed forever. People used to read by candlelight or gaslight. Along came the incandescent light bulb and the world was changed forever. People used to travel overseas by ship. Along came the airplane and the way we travel changed forever. Alternative energy sources are going to be as big, if not more so.

[Ace-Garageguy]

True but the point is that saying Germany; ". . .has five times as much solar power as the U.S . . ." paints a picture that Germany is some sort of green energy utopia which is clearly not the case. The chart shows that they are still producing almost 75% of their energy by means that environmentalists consider "dirty". And they do that because it's still the cheapest way to keep the lights on.

And the REST of the equation is that Germany is only the size of Montana. That means that the U.S. is roughly 27 TIMES LARGER THAN GERMANY, but Germany utilizes 5 times more solar energy than the entire U.S. Hmmmm.....

Edited May 11, 2013 by Ace-Garageguy

[2002p51]

And the REST of the equation is that Germany is only the size of Montana.

Actually Germany is more than twice the size of Montana, 375,021 sq. mi. to Montana's 147, 042. Just the facts ma'am. (With apologies to Sgt. Joe Friday)

[Ace-Garageguy]

Actually Germany is more than twice the size of Montana, 375,021 sq. mi. to Montana's 147, 042. Just the facts ma'am. (With apologies to Sgt. Joe Friday)

I think I'm seeing the problem here. Germany is about 357,000 sq. KILOMETERS, while Montana is about 137,000 sq. MILES.

Math is our friend. Units count. Gotta watch transposing those digits, too. Pesky numbers.

Understanding and accuracy make comparisons SO much more meaningful.

Edited May 11, 2013 by Ace-Garageguy

[2002p51]

I think I'm seeing the problem here. Germany is about 375,000 sq. KILOMETERS, while Montana is about 13,000 sq. MILES. Do the MATH.

Math is our friend.

Understanding and accuracy makes comparisons SO much more meaningful.

Oops, my bad.

[2002p51]

People used to ride horses to get anywhere. Along came cars and the world was changed forever. People used to read by candlelight or gaslight. Along came the incandescent light bulb and the world was changed forever. People used to travel overseas by ship. Along came the airplane and the way we travel changed forever. Alternative energy sources are going to be as big, if not more so.

The difference is that all of those advances were made by private investment in a free market system. The incentive was to make a better, more economical mouse trap so that consumers would want to buy it. There was no waste of tax dollars by the government propping up technologies that were not yet ready for the market.

Leave the alternative energy industry alone and let it find a way to make a profit by producing an economical product and things will progress a lot faster.

And now I'm going to go watch the Cup race from Darlington and leave you greenies to keep on dreaming!

[Ace-Garageguy]

The difference is that all of those advances were made by private investment in a free market system. The incentive was to make a better, more economical mouse trap so that consumers would want to buy it. There was no waste of tax dollars by the government propping up technologies that were not yet ready for the market.

Leave the alternative energy industry alone and let it find a way to make a profit by producing an economical product and things will progress a lot faster.

And now I'm going to go watch the Cup race from Darlington and leave you greenies to keep on dreaming!

Hard to see the TV with your head in the sand.

Some KNOWLEDGE of history is also often useful when forming opinions supposedly BASED on history, or when making pronouncements ABOUT history.

Just two huge examples of many that contradict your position:

1) The development of aviation was largely subsidized and funded by governments. The U.S. Army bought Wright Flyers when they weren't much beyond curiosities, and U.S. Mail carrier contracts helped to spur further development as did continuing military utilization of unproven aircraft.

2) Hoover Dam, using many novel techniques unproven at the time, was a joint Federal / private-enterprise project, and paid for itself well ahead of schedule.

And BOTH solar and wind energy are approaching grid-cost-parity WITHOUT subsidization.

Edited May 12, 2013 by Ace-Garageguy

[mini trucker]

I love lamp

[1930fordpickup]

The difference is that all of those advances were made by private investment in a free market system. The incentive was to make a better, more economical mouse trap so that consumers would want to buy it. There was no waste of tax dollars by the government propping up technologies that were not yet ready for the market.

Leave the alternative energy industry alone and let it find a way to make a profit by producing an economical product and things will progress a lot faster.

And now I'm going to go watch the Cup race from Darlington and leave you greenies to keep on dreaming!

What is NASA to you then Drew ? LOL

I just think it is crazy that they only missed 1 point from a grading system.

[2002p51]

1) The development of aviation was largely subsidized and funded by governments. The U.S. Army bought Wright Flyers when they weren't much beyond curiosities, and U.S. Mail carrier contracts helped to spur further development as did continuing military utilization of unproven aircraft.

Kinda splittin' hairs there.

The government was a CUSTOMER of the aviation industry, just like you or I might be a customer of the automotive industry when we buy a car. The government publishes specs of an airplane they'd like to buy and aircraft companies compete for that business. The cost of the R&D for that aircraft is spread out through the contracted price of each aircraft. The government wasn't artificially "subsidizing" an industry, they were buying products that they wanted and needed.

That's very different from the government using tax dollars to prop up a company that's operating in the red and ultimately goes bankrupt.

And NASA, Andy, works the same way. All of their launch vehicles, the space shuttle, etc. are built by contractors that won the business through the competitive bid process. NASA is a customer buying products they need.

[Ace-Garageguy]

Kinda splittin' hairs there.

The government was a CUSTOMER of the aviation industry, just like you or I might be a customer of the automotive industry when we buy a car. The government publishes specs of an airplane they'd like to buy and aircraft companies compete for that business. The cost of the R&D for that aircraft is spread out through the contracted price of each aircraft. The government wasn't artificially "subsidizing" an industry, they were buying products that they wanted and needed.

That's very different from the government using tax dollars to prop up a company that's operating in the red and ultimately goes bankrupt.

And NASA, Andy, works the same way. All of their launch vehicles, the space shuttle, etc. are built by contractors that won the business through the competitive bid process. NASA is a customer buying products they need.

You're contradicting yourself and don't seem to realize it, and your position shifts to accommodate your argument. The early aircraft were completely unproven technology, and had the U.S. NOT bought what were basically experimental examples on speculation that the tech would mature into something useful, the early aircraft companies WOULD have gone bust. NOT like "you or I" buying a car, a fully-developed technology, AT ALL.

Your position on NASA is also ridiculous. What the space program has returned on investment is REAL-WORLD utilization of technologies developed for TOTAL-LOSS programs like going to the moon, ALL of it experimental at the time. And the x-plane programs were and are still funded in large part as blue-sky R&D with NO immediately foreseeable practical uses, NOT by private industry "building a better mousetrap". The X-planes have NO practical use, but the knowledge they've added has inestimable value to mankind as a whole.

I'll agree that the recent spate of "green" companies propped up artificially by the Bamallama administration, and now nothing but holes in the taxpayer's pockets, is rather unfortunate, but it comes NOT from the impropriety of government subsidizing fledgling technologies, but rather from a SCIENTIFICALLY and TECHNICALLY IGNORANT government (voted into power by a scientifically and technically ignorant electorate) backing the WRONG horses in the race.

Edited May 13, 2013 by Ace-Garageguy

[CrazyGirl]

the best car tested ,, I would say a Yugo , followed by the Austin Marina

[Harry P.]

the best car tested ,, I would say a Yugo , followed by the Austin Marina

You been sniffin' glue?

[CrazyGirl]

^{I think I was back in 1975 when I was like the only sucker to buy the Austin Marina , bought it new for I think 3,500 dollars , sold it 6 months later for 500 , it would not go more than 25 miles w/out breaking down , what a nightmare that was}

[Harry P.]

^{I think I was back in 1975 when I was like the only sucker to buy the Austin Marina , bought it new for I think 3,500 dollars , sold it 6 months later for 500 , it would not go more than 25 miles w/out breaking down , what a nightmare that was}

And were you also suckered into buying a Yugo?

[CrazyGirl]

oh heck no lol