1 hour ago, G-RFRY said:

I don`t think cats are killing our sea birds we have some big sea bird colleens around the UK Puffins don`t nest on the mainland, most islands around UK Scotland, and more large windfarms are planed they make loads of money for the consortium PEEL Holdings now no longer interested in retail centres but wind farms yes.   

 

Again... " We conclude that careful siting during the planning phase can avoid a multitude of potential conflicts with avian populations and that despite generally inadequate post-construction monitoring (especially during periods of unusual weather), experience shows low levels of collision rates, especially among long-lived large-bodied bird species considered most at risk. "

This was sea birds.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/335703152_Offshore_wind_farms_and_their_effects_on_birds

Also worth mentioning that 200,000 marine birds are killed every year by drilling platforms.  Birds are killed or injured after colliding with the structures, becoming contaminated with oil and related chemicals, and even being burned by flares. Mutated chicks too due to toxic pollution. But lets just ignore that shall we. 

https://environmentamerica.org/sites/environment/files/AME_offshoretwopager_2015_print-1.pdf#:~:text=Birds are killed or injured,in the Gulf of Mexico.

1 hour ago, dave2013 said:

I'll bet that these houses are tiny. 

Does 2,000 square feet count as tiny?

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/calgary-home-certified-as-alberta-s-1st-passive-house-1.4803890

And regarding wind turbines and birds, just paint one of the blades black.

https://www.fastcompany.com/90543981/painting-wind-turbine-blades-black-can-reduce-bird-deaths-70

Edited February 22, 20215 yr by goates

1 hour ago, martin-w said:

 

Oh god no Dave. Passive houses don't have to be tiny. Mind you, you are from the US and I know you guys tend to have much larger houses than here in Europe. Below is a passive house, and as you can see, its by no means small.

 

You post a picture of an unrealistic *model* passive house.  80% of Europeans don't have houses and yards nearly that large. I also highly doubt that body heat alone could keep that big place warm.  I won't even mention the cost which is out of reach for most people.  Please.

And 200 years for a solar panel???  Really?  You see, it's your exaggerated claims and almost fanatical zeal regarding this issue that make my arguments for me.

Dave

1 hour ago, dave2013 said:

You post a picture of an unrealistic *model* passive house.  80% of Europeans don't have houses and yards nearly that large. 

 

 

What the hell!!! 😁 You say passive houses must be small and I show you one that isn't, and explain big houses can be passive too, and you say "yes but Europeans don't have yards that big". ' That's not the point, you said they couldn't be big. They can. lol!

 

Quote

 I won't even mention the cost which is out of reach for most people.

 

Irrelevant! You said they must be small, wrong! They don't have to be small. 😂 

 

Quote

And 200 years for a solar panel???  Really?  You see, it's your exaggerated claims and almost fanatical zeal regarding this issue that make my arguments for me.

 

Okay, its happened. I'm getting annoyed now. Its not "fanatical zeal" its fact that I back up with links. I don't just guess liker you do. If we discount drop in efficiency  solar panels have an estimated life of 200 years. I actually posted you the link.

 

Assuming the end of a solar panel’s life means that it will no longer produce electricity anymore then the lifespan of a solar panel is approximately 200 years(.05% degradation per year). 

https://thosesolarguys.com/how-often-do-you-have-to-replace-solar-panels/

 

 

 

Edited February 22, 20215 yr by martin-w

Quote

You post a picture of an unrealistic *model* passive house.

 

Use Google, there are a multitude. Here's another...

 

Edited February 22, 20215 yr by martin-w

2 hours ago, martin-w said:

If we discount drop in efficiency  solar panels have an estimated life of 200 years

You're not taking into account the degradation and wear of the materials the solar panels are made of.  I was wrong about them only lasting 10-15 years, as I was going off my knowledge of solar panels 10 years ago.  However, it is doubtful that newer types will last more than 25-30 years.  Are there super-duper panels made of some space-age nano-engineered material that will last longer?  I'm sure there are, but they will not be affordable. 

You also fail to take into consideration the inverters and other components that also have limited life spans.  Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, are the battery storage plants that are absolutely necessary to have reliable, uninterrupted power from solar and wind.  It would take an immense number of batteries to supply the country with enough power when it is cloudy, when the sun is not high in the sky, when it is nighttime, and when the wind isn't blowing.  This means a lot of mining and processing of the materials needed for the batteries.  To top it all off, the batteries only last 10-20 years.  By the way, the wind turbines don't last forever either, and they require a lot of materials to make.  Lastly, there is the negative impact of clearing off thousands of acres of land to build the solar plants, an environmental disaster IMO.

You started this topic reporting on a new experimental panel that is 40% efficient.  That's great, but it is a prototype, nowhere near mass production.  I'm talking about what is available now and in the near future, not in 20 years.  There are many green energy proponents that want us to spend trillions of dollars building huge solar panel farms and wind turbines to get us to zero emissions in 10 years.  I'm sorry, but that is just not possible.  Maybe one day it will be.

I'm just being realistic.

Dave

 

 

Sorry, when you decide to tell me I make exagerated claims when I've given you quotes, links, evidence and you are taking comments out of context, and again above I see you have either not read or ignored my words, I'm no longer interested in you.

When you know nothing about passive houses but claim they have to be small and I show you large ones, and you switch context and say "European yards aren't big enough" I'm no longer  interested in you. 

When you still claim solar panels can't last longer than 25 years when I've told you numerous times, and provided links, that 25 years is the time it takes to drop to 80% efficiency but they still generate beyond that, and you ignore me, I'm no longer interested in you.

It's pointless for me to expend any more effort.

Have a nice day.

Edited February 22, 20215 yr by martin-w

This will be my last post on this topic.

OK, so passive houses can be larger.  Fine.  I concede.  I wonder if they are affordable for the average person?  I know for a fact that very highly energy efficient homes are much more expensive here than standard homes.  BTW, I said that "I'd bet" that they are tiny, not that they "must be small".  Anyway, I stand corrected.

Every time someone makes a reasonable point about green energy or climate change which is in any way critical or negative, your reaction is to write long posts full of links in an attempt to destroy their argument and crush any dissent.  You also quickly respond to bad behavior by pointing to other bad behavior, so to speak, instead of addressing the problems with your own side of the issue.   For example, when someone points out that wind turbines kill a lot of birds, instead of conceding that point and trying to find a solution, you quickly accuse other types of energy production of killing even more birds.

When I point out that solar panels typically need replacement after 25-30 years, you post links to obviously pro-renewable energy websites who clearly will make the most optimistic claims about renewable sources, and claim that new ones last 50 years.  OK, fine, newer ones *may* last that long.  Unfortunately, we'll have to wait 50 years to find out if that's true.  Finally, you go even further and claim that solar panels can last 200 years, which everyone knows is just not realistic.

My goal is not to win the argument.  It is to find the truth, which likely lies somewhere near the middle where climate change and green energy are concerned.  In doing so, I will push back against any unproven dogma or claims that I believe to be exaggerated or unfounded. 

Sometimes I am wrong, but sometimes so are you.  We must be wiling to admit when we are wrong if we are going to get to the truth and solve this problem.  And it is a problem, that is, the problem of our utter dependence on fossil fuels.  We need to solve it, and with honest discourse, goodwill, strong desire, technology, and a little time, I believe that we will.

Dave

Edited February 23, 20215 yr by dave2013

2 hours ago, dave2013 said:

This will be my last post on this topic.

OK, so passive houses can be larger.  Fine.  I concede.  I wonder if they are affordable for the average person? 

 

 

Answered already. But again, there are builders who have shaved the premium for a passive house down to just a few percent compared to a modern house in the UK that has to be well insulated to pass building regulations. The savings long term though in terms of energy bills are substantial. Passive houses can be built any size to suit the budget. 

 

Quote

Every time someone makes a reasonable point about green energy or climate change which is in any way critical or negative, your reaction is to write long posts full of links in an attempt to destroy their argument and crush any dissent.

 

Wrong! What I do is counter "critical or negative" points that are inaccurate, outdated or just plain wrong. Like solar panels "only last ten years" for example. Trouble is, certain people, even when you show them evidence, factual information, still wont accept that they are wrong and keep arguing the same point over and over again, while ignoring my responses like they hadn't happened. And yes, you bet I provide links to reliable sources. Its called including evidence, rather than, like some, just making unsubstituted claims. So its not "crushing dissent" its getting to the the truth! Revealing the truth rather than promoting myths. 

 

Quote

For example, when someone points out that wind turbines kill a lot of birds, instead of conceding that point and trying to find a solution, you quickly accuse other types of energy production of killing even more birds.

 

Unfortunately you weren't able to understand the point. The point is, that all structures that are tall kill birds. Power stations, oil rigs,  gas drilling platforms, nuclear power stations, domestic houses... all kill more birds than wind turbines. So for the anti renewable energy crew to trash wind turbines and use the fact they kill birds to protest their existence,  while making zero complaints about fossil fuel and nuclear power stations that kill more birds, is obviously utterly hypocritical. We MUST generate power, so better to do so with wind turbines than nuclear or fossil fuel power stations if you want to save birds lives... that is the point you missed. As for finding a solution, the trouble is you don't read links or read what I type. If you had, you would have seen the quote regarding carefully locating wind turbines to avoid migratory routs, which would have a big impact in terms of saving birds lives. 

 

Quote

When I point out that solar panels typically need replacement after 25-30 years, you post links to obviously pro-renewable energy websites who clearly will make the most optimistic claims about renewable sources, and claim that new ones last 50 years.  OK, fine, newer ones *may* last that long.  Unfortunately, we'll have to wait 50 years to find out if that's true.  Finally, you go even further and claim that solar panels can last 200 years, which everyone knows is just not realistic.

 

Now the above, is a prime example of why I post links, and make the lengthy replies you complain about. Its because, once again, you have utterly ignored what I have gone to the trouble of typing. You have also not bothered to even glance at the quote regarding 200 year lifespan solar panels. Its boring, but here, for the tenth time is the same reply...

 

"When I point out that solar panels typically need replacement after 25-30 years, you post links to obviously pro-renewable energy websites who clearly will make the most optimistic claims about renewable sources, and claim that new ones last 50 years."

Which is correct, I can give you many of the links (evidence) you complain about to verify that. So what's your problem?

"Finally, you go even further and claim that solar panels can last 200 years, which everyone knows is just not realistic."

Again... you have either utterly ignored the link and quote I gave you or not being capable of understanding this simple concept.

Here it is again: Manufactures guarantee solar panels for 25 - 30 years. The lifespan is quoted as 25 - 30 years. But the manufacturers quoted lifespan pertains to the panel not dropping below 80% of the efficiency it had when new. Thus, after 25 - 30 years, the panel is likely to be down to 80% efficiency. That does NOT mean the panel is scrap, it does not mean there is a special chip in the panel that turns it off, that does not mean the owner will need to scrap the panel... it just means that the panel will generate less than 80% of the energy it did from new. The panel can be used for many years beyond that point.

Now here's the thing, panels lose 0.5% efficiency each year, thus, it would be 200 years before the panel was generating zero electricity and be useless. 

All very simple, I'm stunned you didn't understand and that I've had to repeat myself many times. Here's one of the links you don't like, and this is posted now for the third time and I'll do it in bold because it seems you cant see it...

 

Assuming the end of a solar panel’s life means that it will no longer produce electricity anymore then the lifespan of a solar panel is approximately 200 years(.05% degradation per year). 

https://thosesolarguys.com/how-often-do-you-have-to-replace-solar-panels/

 

According to an analysis by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), some premium panel manufacturers offer degradation rates as low as 0.3% per year; and while other brands have higher degradation rates of up to 0.8% per year, that’s still a yearly average degradation rate of only 0.5%. 

Meaning, even if you get a standard solar panel 25-year warranty period at 0.5% degradation, your solar panels should continue operating at around 88% of their original capacity after this time.³ Not too shabby at all!

https://www.sunrun.com/go-solar-center/solar-articles/how-long-do-solar-panels-really-last

 

Quote

My goal is not to win the argument.  It is to find the truth

 

I disagree! or your wouldn't have ignored the information I have given you so that I had to keep typing it over and over again, and I wouldn't have had to keep provide the same links (evidence) over and over gain. For expiable, Ive even had to do the same again in this post.

 

Quote

I will push back against any unproven dogma or claims that I believe to be exaggerated or unfounded. 

 

You've actually been "pushing back" against factual information, backed up by evidence, citations provided. That isn't pushing back against exaggerated claims, it's being in denial. 

P.S. I hope you like the lengthy reply and many links. 

Edited February 23, 20215 yr by martin-w

Back to solar: the elephant in the room is the grid. If you don’t read the long posts, just skip to the last line now 😊

Currently (!) most places in the world can manage augmented solar but can’t live without the grid in lean times. This works relatively well for early adopters because others are carrying the cost of line maintenance. But as more people adopt solar, the grid must be supported by a shrinking consumer base. Electricity prices will go up to compensate. And resale into the grid will go down. It’s a yo-yo effect, making it hard to pin down the solar payback timescale.

The best compromise might be that some consumers go to solar, and offload the grid. This makes the big power stations less profitable to run, and so renewables become an option. The utility companies will push back hard against this, so solar has no easy ride. This gives rise to some somewhat optimistic marketing which we see daily.

In tandem with large battery storage and other distributed generation, you end up with a mix of electricity for all occasions. The benefit of a large mix of supply is that any one failure can be carried by the others.
Tricky to implement, as you need to oversize the generation capacity, and everyone has to pull in the same direction.

Alas the present tendency as we see in the above discussion, is to try to do things at the expense of others.
There ain’t one silver bullet.

Coincidentally, yesterday, one of my favourite channels did a video on passive houses. $400 dollars, or £283, energy bill for the entire year, Yikes, I'll have some of that please. 

 

 

Michael Moore's documentary 'has exposed green energy as a fraud' - YouTube

The Left 'has attacked' Michael Moore for his 'Planet Human' documentary - YouTube

Don`t worry someone is making Billions.

Edited February 25, 20215 yr by G-RFRY

I believe I've already posted regarding More's documentary and how it was heavily criticised for being outdated, misleading.

Someone also posted an entire video debunking it.

Quite amusing that the news report regarding More's documentary you posted was Sky News Australia, which is infamous for its anti renewable energy propaganda and lies. Owned by Murdoch of course, so expected. 

Edited February 25, 20215 yr by martin-w

The miners debunked it they mine the materials to make the solar panels and the coal.