Saving on Solar Way Cooler Than Saving Dolphin Babies

Just what Renewable energy world needed. Another rant from Dr. Alexander Cannara. If it isn't Thorium then he isn't interested. Look at all his previous posts and Youtube videos. Isn't there a thorium site you can over post on?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PwGcefHYyIM

@FreeAsTheWind

Re. thorium reactors, here's the UK National Nuclear Laboratory. "... the thorium fuel cycle does not currently have a role to play in the UK context... the benefits of the thorium fuel cycle have been over-stated."

And here's MIT: "Thorium has been considered as a nuclear fuel since the very beginning of the atomic energy era. However, its use in early reactors, whether light-water cooled or gas cooled, has not led any commercial nuclear reactors to operate on a thorium cycle. ... Irradiating thorium produces weapons-useable material. ... the technology of thorium fuel does not offer sufficient incentives from a cost or waste point of view to easily penetrate the market."

Basically, thorium reactors are the latest in a long line of techno fantasies from the nuke lobby, eagerly adopted by a 'thorium cult' on the internet. They are nothing but a distraction from what the nuke industry is trying to sell now.

'Doctor' Alex

I discovered in an earlier thread that you don't let facts get in the way of your opinions, but you should try and learn why nukes are not compatible with renewables. Here's a starter:

http://www.unendlich-viel-energie.de/en/details/article/523/renewable-energies-and-base-load-power-plants-are-they-compatible.html

P.S. Windmills *mill*. Wind turbines produce electricity. Good to get the basics right if you hope to be taken seriously.

Right, Russ. Remember what a panel used to cost just a few years ago? And, consider what electricity will cost a few years from now. So, given the long life of these 240W panels, buying one now, then buying another for less in a few years will average out to a sensible value, just as averaging stock purchases can (if you're not emotional about a stock -- want some Facebook?)
;]

This isn't about renewables or nuclear. It's about using one to maximize the potential of the other. The smart guys are promoting both ...and so am I :/

http://www.consumerenergyreport.com/2012/05/20/plug-in-solar-panels-do-they-make-cents/

RHinLA said:

"...By the way, isn't the scaling issue just related to capture and transfer efficiency, storage, and distribution?..."

Just?

"...I know "just" may be underestimating the rocky road to maturity (THAT road is always rocky, but if the goal is worth it, reflection usually re-categorizes rocky road to pebbly path), but once they are in place and fully stabilized, won't solar scale as well as any?..."

It all comes down to cost. Wind and solar would require gargantuan amounts of storage to provide all energy. Storage greatly increases cost (you may build five solar farms, four of which are used to fill reservoirs to keep supply steady). You throw money away every time you pump water and throw more away when you retrieve it. It is entirely possible to go bankrupt from the losses incurred storing and retrieving energy.

The only alternative for storage is some kind of super grid with enough superconducting intercontinental cables to keep the lights on at night coast to coast. I can't imagine the cost of such a thing, assuming it's technically possible.

Cost is why we don't build a reservoir near every nuclear reactor so it can pump water that can be released to provide peaking and load following. It's cheaper to use natural gas for that.

On the other hand, if cost isn't an issue, then let's build a reservoir near every nuclear plant and let them pump water to provide load following and peaking for wind and solar.

20% of the electrical power in the most energy hungry nation on earth is being provided by zero emission nuclear at very competitive rates. It's hard to ignore that fact. In the last 20 years the percent of our energy from renewable dropped form 11 % to 10%. It is almost all coming from hydro and biomass. Solar's contribution is less than a percent of the renewable contribution. You read what it would cost me to use solar?

Rhin, just one reality for solar, of any form -- 3.1MW/acre is all we'll ever get on the surface. Nuclear is >50MW/acre, depending on yechnology. And, when considering the >90% availability of nuclear vs <25% for solar, the distinction becomes clear.

The big advantage solar has over all others is that it can be installed locally, on existing structures and so have little environmental impact, especially as its efficiency continues to climb from 600kW/acre toward the physical max of 3000kW/acre.

Putting these two sources together with efficiency, storage and EVs, solves all power needs, including process heat for desalination, industry and carbon-neutral fuels.

Russ says: "I'm a big fan of solar but have to admit that it costs more than nuclear per unit energy produced and nuclear is also the safest form of energy we have. If solar ever manages to scale to anything meaningful, the number of people injured and killed falling off roofs installing it will exceed injuries from nuclear per unit energy produced by an order of magnitude or two." Yeah, but that's just Darwinism at work.

By the way, isn't the scaling issue just related to capture and transfer efficiency, storage, and distribution? I know "just" may be underestimating the rocky road to maturity (THAT road is always rocky, but if the goal is worth it, reflection usually re-categorizes rocky road to pebbly path), but once they are in place and fully stabilized, won't solar scale as well as any?

No worries Russ. My comment way back was an accident, intended for another blog thread...

'Here are the nuke safety stats...

http colonslashslash tinyurl dotcom/3nwjboz
colonslashslash tinyurl dot com/42wvr9l (PSI ENSAD)'

Then Cliff did his 'Fukushima' shout out, and it was off!

So Cliff, we'll just agree that everything you say is 'right'. Cheer up.
;]

And, my introduction was accidental, for another discussion altogether, when I wrote...

"Here are the nuke safety stats...

http://tinyurl.com/3nwjboz
http://tinyurl.com/42wvr9l (PSI ENSAD)"

But Cliff wants to be right, so Cliff, perk up, everything you say here will be 'right'.
;]

My bad. I stand corrected.

Russ, you wrote, "Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't you are the one who introduced nuclear into the discussion ...? No, that was Alex - comment 22.

"...Russ, I'm afraid you don't know me well enough to say what I do or don't get..."

How well I know you is irrelevant.

"...You may recall that this discussion began about solar PV - some clever ads in particular..."

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't you are the one who introduced nuclear into the discussion with the following comment:

"...Saving on Solar Way Cooler Than Preventing More Fukushimas..."

It was that statement that initiated my comment.

"...I have no particular beef with nuclear other than that it's never fulfilled is original promise. ..."

Let me guess ...it isn't too cheap to meter?

"...If you guys can make it safe and affordable, go for it..."

I'm a big fan of solar but have to admit that it costs more than nuclear per unit energy produced and nuclear is also the safest form of energy we have. If solar ever manages to scale to anything meaningful, the number of people injured and killed falling off roofs installing it will exceed injuries from nuclear per unit energy produced by an order of magnitude or two.

"...There are many options for dealing with solar intermittency without resorting to nuclear or fossil sources (including coal)..."

That simply isn't true.

Read "A Base Load Free Power System"

http://www.consumerenergyreport.com/2012/04/05/a-base-load-free-power-system/

"...If you want to promote nuclear, do so on its own merits and please do it elsewhere..."

If you want to denigrate nuclear, please do it elsewhere. This is a renewable energy blog, not an arm of the anti-nuclear lobby.

You're right Alex, it's about solar and how to market it.

Guess what, Cliff, this isn't about you!

It's also not about Sunrun: "insult Sunrun and author Steve Leone" -- I simply complained that the tirle of Steve's article was juvenile, remember? You thought what I said was important enough to repeat it above. Haven't you ever criticized someone for what they wrote? Oh yeah, me!

Russ picked you out quite well. You're the one who blabbed about nukes without understanding their relationship to 'renewables', and Russ & I tried to correct you.

You must have lots of ego on the line here to write silliness like: "How much longer do we need to wait for electricity so cheap we won't need a meter?"

Give it a rest, Cliff. You do only yourself harm.

Since you apparently don't bother to read, here again is what I provided on why the US is behind the ROW on its own technology...

We also have help in awakening Congress from some other countries, as you also know (http colon slashslash)...
tinyurl dot com/4t5ojde
tinyurl dot com/7hatm2b
asia.iop dot org/cws/article/news/47111
tinyurl dot com/6vmaljn
vimeo dot com/39052604
tinyurl dot com/8ynwcqw
www dot deccanherald dot com/content/246849/india-all-set-tap-thorium.html

And, the Canadians & S. Africans are also moving quickly & quietly. You don't want to study what you're biased against, Cliff? Too bad. You're not my focus.

Alex,

Odd that you'd argue my point when the record is here in black and white.

In your first post you insult Sunrun and author Steve Leone: 'the writer doesn't even have the gumption to include an email address to hear from those he depends on propagandizing!'

'About as unprofessional as one could be ....'

'Leone needs an editor to quash his juvenile prose.'

In your second and third posts you continue with the insults. Not until your fourth post did you start with your off-topic and often repeated advocacy for nukes: 'Here are the nuke safety stats... blah, blah, blah'

So Alex, with that issue behind us maybe you can answer Bob Mitchell's question, 'What's the hold up?'

How much longer do we need to wait for electricity so cheap we won't need a meter?

Ahhh Cliff, so now you show everyone here that you don't read what others write.

I've always said, everywhere here, that local solar PV, efficiency & storage, plus EVs and baseload nukes meet all our needs for thousands of years.

You can wriggle all you want, to try to shift the focus away from your errors, and fib about what others have said here, but people really aren't that dumb.

Time to pack it in Cliff.
;]

Russ, I'm afraid you don't know me well enough to say what I do or don't get. You may recall that this discussion began about solar PV - some clever ads in particular. What Alex does is rather consistent within these renewableenergyworld.com discussions. He attacks what ever form of renewable energy is being discussed and then, within a post or two, begins advocating for his brand of nuclear power. It would seem that there are enough on-line discussion on thorium reactors to keep his salesman genes satisfied. Apparently not.

I have no particular beef with nuclear other than that it's never fulfilled is original promise. If you guys can make it safe and affordable, go for it.

You write, "Solar cannot scale far without help from nuclear or fossil fuel backup." That is simply not true. There are many options for dealing with solar intermittency without resorting to nuclear or fossil sources (including coal). If you want to promote nuclear, do so on its own merits and please do it elsewhere.

Thanks Russ. By the way, for those interested further regarding nuke possibilities, see these...

http://tinyurl.com/8xmso5v (advanced)

https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=0AaGzKVyMeFZsYWpnOG5jbmY5emI3XzUwNWd0ODM4Z2Y1&authkey=CJvmhdsO

www.glerner.com/liquid-fluoride-thorium-reactor.php?p=webpage

"..I just put facts up for others to use to avoid misinformation..."

Very good point. Debates are for the audience.

Cliff, you just don't get it. Nuclear is not a competitor of solar. It's an adjunct. Solar cannot scale far without help from nuclear or fossil fuel backup. You are choosing coal. Promote solar, stop denigrating nuclear.

What little you know about nuclear is largely wrong, having gotten the knowledge from unreliable sensationalized sources.

Well Bob, have you ever proposed a project that was well regulated? Call the NRC and DoE and ask them why their Gen-IV MSR hasn't been pushed to development yet.
;]
Having spoken personally with NRC's head, it's clear that they only do what Congress tells them to do and what Congress gives $ to them to hire folks to do.

So, Bob, start visiting your Congressmen. But you knew all that, didn't you?
;]
So, as you know, the Chinese are now leading with our own designs and moving to prototypes by 2020 That's great! It may wake our useless Congress up.

But, even if it doesn't , it addresses the thing we here are all agreeing on -- elimination of combustion power, right? Ok, so it'll mean we'll have to print even more T-bills to exchange with the Chinese for our own reactor designs, when they start shipping. Sort of like wind now, where we ship cheap coal overseas and the Chinese & Koreans ship back expensive wind towers, generator materials, etc.

But, we also have help in awakening Congress from some other countries, as you also know (http colon slashslash)...
tinyurl dot com/4t5ojde
tinyurl dot com/7hatm2b
asia.iop dot org/cws/article/news/47111
tinyurl dot com/6vmaljn
vimeo dot com/39052604
tinyurl dot com/8ynwcqw
www dot deccanherald dot com/content/246849/india-all-set-tap-thorium.html

And, the Canadians & S. Africans are also moving quickly & quietly. It's always nice to get free designs (from dummies like us) of things that actually worked for years.

So, Bob, if you're worried about the 'hold up', talk with your reps (I'll give you a packet) and sign the petition to the President! Even swing by Chi-town...
www dot thoriumenergyalliance dot com

Or Shanghai...
www dot itheo dot org/articles/announcing-thec12-shanghai

Well Bob, have you ever proposed a project that was well regulated? Call the NRC and DoE and ask them why their Gen-IV MSR hasn't been pushed to development yet.
;]
Having spoken personally with NRC's head, it's clear that they only do what Congress tells them to do and what Congress gives $ to them to hire folks to do.

So, Bob, start visiting your Congressmen. But you knew all that, didn't you?
;]
So, as you know, the Chinese are now leading with our own designs and moving to prototypes by 2020 That's great! IT may wake our useless Congress up.

But, even if it doesn't , it addresses the thing we here are all agreeing on -- elimination of combustion power, right? Ok, so it'll mean we'll have to print even more T-bills to exchange with the Chinese for our own reactor designs, when they start shipping. Sort of like wind now, where we ship cheap coal overseas and the Chinese & Koreans ship back expensive wind towers, generator materials, etc.

But, we also have help in awakening Congress from some other countries, as you also know (http colon slashslash...)
tinyurl.com/4t5ojde
tinyurl.com/7hatm2b
asia.iop.org/cws/article/news/47111
tinyurl.com/6vmaljn
vimeo.com/39052604
inyurl.com/8ynwcqw
www dot deccanherald dot com/content/246849/india-all-set-tap-thorium dot html

And, the Canadians & S. Africans are also moving quickly & quietly. It's always nice to get free designs (from dummies like us) of things that actually worked for years.

So, Bob, if you're worried about the "hold up", talk with your reps (I'll give you a packet) and sign the petition to the President! Even swing by Chi-town...
www dot thoriumenergyalliance dot com

Or Shanghai...
www dot itheo dot org/articles/announcing-thec12-shanghai

Well Bob, have you ever proposed a project that was well regulated? Call the NRC and DoE and ask them why their Gen-IV MSR hasn't been pushed to development yet.
;]
Having spoken personally with NRC's head, it's clear that they only do what Congress tells them to do and what Congress gives $ to them to hire folks to do.

So, Bob, start visiting your Congressmen. But you knew all that, didn't you?
;]
So, as you know, the Chinese are now leading with our own designs and moving to prototypes by 2020 That's great! IT may wake our useless Congress up.

But, even if it doesn't , it addresses the thing we here are all agreeing on -- elimination of combustion power, right? Ok, so it'll mean we'll have to print even more T-bills to exchange with the Chinese for our own reactor designs, when they start shipping. Sort of like wind now, where we ship cheap coal overseas and the Chinese & Koreans ship back expensive wind towers, generator materials, etc.

But, we also have help in awakening Congress from some other countries, as you also know (http colon slashslash...)
tinyurl.com/4t5ojde
tinyurl.com/7hatm2b
asia.iop.org/cws/article/news/47111
tinyurl.com/6vmaljn
vimeo.com/39052604
inyurl.com/8ynwcqw
www dot deccanherald.com/content/246849/india-all-set-tap-thorium.html

And, the Canadians & S. Africans are also moving quickly & quietly. It's always nice to get free designs (from dummies like us) of things that actually worked for years.

So, Bob, if you're worried about the "hold up", talk with your reps (I'll give you a packet) and sign the petition to the President! Even swing by Chi-town...
www dot thoriumenergyalliance dot com

Or Shanghai...
www dot itheo dot org/articles/announcing-thec12-shanghai

Well Bob, have you ever proposed a project that was well regulated? Call the NRC and DoE and ask them why their Gen-IV MSR hasn't been pushed to development yet.
;]
Having spoken personally with NRC's head, it's clear that they only do what Congress tells them to do and what Congress gives $ to them to hire folks to do.

So, Bob, start visiting your Congressmen. But you knew all that, didn't you?
;]
So, as you know, the Chinese are now leading with our own designs and moving to prototypes by 2020 That's great! IT may wake our useless Congress up.

But, even if it doesn't , it addresses the thing we here are all agreeing on -- elimination of combustion power, right? Ok, so it'll mean we'll have to print even more T-bills to exchange with the Chinese for our own reactor designs, when they start shipping. Sort of like wind now, where we ship cheap coal overseas and the Chinese & Koreans ship back expensive wind towers, generator materials, etc.

But, we also have help in awakening Congress from some other countries, as you also know...
http://tinyurl.com/4t5ojde
http://tinyurl.com/7hatm2b
http://asia.iop.org/cws/article/news/47111
http://tinyurl.com/6vmaljn
http://vimeo.com/39052604
http://tinyurl.com/8ynwcqw
www.deccanherald.com/content/246849/india-all-set-tap-thorium.html

And, the Canadians & S. Africans are also moving quickly & quietly. It's always nice to get free designs (from dummies like us) of things that actually worked for years.

So, Bob, if you're worried about the "hold up", talk with your reps (I'll give you a packet) and sign the petition to the President! Even swing by Chi-town...
www dot thoriumenergyalliance dot com

Or Shanghai...
www dot itheo dot org/articles/announcing-thec12-shanghai

Well Bob, have you ever proposed a project that was well regulated? Call the NRC and DoE and ask them why their Gen-IV MSR hasn't been pushed to development yet.
;]
Having spoken personally with NRC's head, it's clear that they only do what Congress tells them to do and what Congress gives $ to them to hire folks to do.

So, Bob, start visiting your Congressmen. But you knew all that, didn't you?
;]
So, as you know, the Chinese are now leading with our own designs and moving to prototypes by 2020 That's great! IT may wake our useless Congress up.

But, even if it doesn't , it addresses the thing we here are all agreeing on -- elimination of combustion power, right? Ok, so it'll mean we'll have to print even more T-bills to exchange with the Chinese for our own reactor designs, when they start shipping. Sort of like wind now, where we ship cheap coal overseas and the Chinese & Koreans ship back expensive wind towers, generator materials, etc.

But, we also have help in awakening Congress from some other countries, as you also know...
http://tinyurl.com/4t5ojde
http://tinyurl.com/7hatm2b
http://asia.iop.org/cws/article/news/47111
http://tinyurl.com/6vmaljn
http://vimeo.com/39052604
http://tinyurl.com/8ynwcqw
www.deccanherald.com/content/246849/india-all-set-tap-thorium.html

And, the Canadians & S. Africans are also moving quickly & quietly. It's always nice to get free designs (from dummies like us) of things that actually worked for years.

So, Bob, if you're worried about the "hold up", talk with your reps (I'll give you a packet) and sign the petition to the President! Even swing by Chi-town...
www.thoriumenergyalliance.com

Or Shanghai...
www.itheo.org/articles/announcing-thec12-shanghai

DrAlex: I've got a question for you...What's the hold up? I've read up a bit on Thorium reactors and they seem like they would be heads and shoulders above uranium reactors.

Why aren't the plants that I've read about being proposed utilizing this apparently superior technology?

Everybody else is welcome to answer as well.

Bob "The Clean Energy Guy" Mitchell

Cliff, your ability to avoid facts is impressive! Does this ever work for you in other venues?

The salt reactors at Oak Ridge operated for more than 4 years -- you didn't bother to read what was given you previously?

The cost of not having to build huge containment structures, of not having to store massive amounts of waste, of paying <1/100 the amount for solid fuel structures, of not having to build extra cooling systems, of not having to waste most of the generated heat, etc. are not in your accounting ledger?

The benefit of being able to convert current waste to salable power, the ability to produce ~$100 million/year of valuable isotopes, the ability to run the most efficient turbine cycles, the ability to convert CO2 & water to neutral diesel & aircraft fuels, the ability to serve mobile needs -- none of these are in your ledger either?

So indeed, $2/W is a realistic construction cost. $1 billion to get prototypes up in China by 2020 is realistic, unless you're the one human left who thinks the Chinese are fools. And then there are the Canadians, etc. -- you know something they all don't? Want to share?

Bottom line, Cliff, convincing you of anything isn't my goal. I just put facts up for others to use to avoid misinformation. You can go off on any belief path you like.

Alex, you wrote, "So 20 years of R&D and several years of operation mean "no track record" to you?" Operation? What "operation?" You do agree that we need affordable solutions, right?

The recent decision of the Chinese Academy of Sciences fund TFMSR research sounds like another 20 years of R&D. Like so many pie-in-the-sky technologies, this one also has a constant 20-year timeframe before we can expect any pay off. IMHO we do not have 20 years or the $billions that would be needed.

Rhin, we agree on most all points. Since >2% of land has human structure on it, that can indeed provide solar PV & hot water to meet peak daytime demands. NYC was recently laser surveyed and estimated to have even 20%-efficient rooftop solar do about half its max summer day's peak.

EVs, as well as upcoming local storage, indeed provide the base for an overnight load demand, as Betterplace.com is doing very interestingly.

And, efficiency is also key, because our tradition is to waste.

However, large baseload demands, from industry & essential services, like hospitals, airports, etc. need real 24/7, >90%
capacity delivery. This isn't the realm for solar electric generation & storage.

We want to minimize environmental impacts, so nuclear based on what JFK was told in 1962 serves that purpose, especially using Thorium-salt systems, whose inherent natural safety means they can be located closer to loads, producing little waste & even consuming existing wastes, as we wish.

This is also why our military is looking at them for forward-operations power. We incurred ~30% of our casualties in Iraq to just the transport of liquids -- diesel & water. The high electrical demand of current forward ops demands new thinking for power -- see Col. Rogge's presentation here...
www.thoriumenergyalliance.com/ThoriumSite/TEAC3.html

The history is important to grasp: two Nobel winners are responsible for the basic ideas of safe Thorium bred to fissile fuel inside a reactor & use of stable molten salts to carry that fuel & deliver heat from reactor to power block (turbine/process-heat, etc.).

Those ideas, worked out at ORNL from 1940s to 1970s & operated in real systems, mean that we know the parameters of such systems & know they eliminate all the bad issues associated with water-cooled, solid-fuelled machines, invented in 1946 and used ever since.

These realities -- almost-free fuel, "walk-away" safety, low waste & optional waste consumption are unique.

Cliff, "no track record"? So 20 years of R&D and several year sof operation mean "no track record" to you? Better not buy any car or electronic product, or any software from now on -- "no track records".
;]
Maybe come to Shanghai and tell the Chinese that, eh?..
www.itheo.org/articles/announcing-thec12-shanghai

Thanks, DocA, for the info. I've been a fan of the UCS since the early '70s and respect their take on everything I've ever seen them willing to assume a position on. I'm glad you started your note with the 24/7 issue. It's always been my feeling that we could look at solar as RE available MORE THAN 24/7 if we can ever create a low maintenance storage capability with ease of power integration into existing distribution channels. Wouldn't that concept provide power to the people 24/7 without having to ramp up nuclear material production? Once an economic storage process is implemented, the only issue seemingly remaining is equally economical power distribution. We are capitalists foremost, but it isn't too far back in our American history that we were primarily savers within the capitalist structure, with investment being a luxury. Can you envision the buy-in of consumers of power to the idea that they can get their power not only free, but, with a little scrimping and saving (read turning out the light when you leave a room on a much grander scale), actually make a little walking around cash on the side? Saving AND investing - talk about an easy sell. Moreover, taking your support of local solar to the level of national (global?) support given the storage and distribution capability, wouldn't you then favor de-commissioning nuclear as appropriate for the purpose of eliminating nuclear waste (if we haven't successfully burned it all by then), eliminating costly and sometimes ephemeral maintenance, eliminating the huge cost of building new facilities, telling Ma Nature she can go ahead and shake her booty anywhere she wants to, and satisfying all us occasionally uninformed, frantic, sign-waving, sky-is-falling anti-nuke laymen?

Thanks, Alex, I knew you'd like it. But actually my phrasing was more accurate since most people put them all in one barrel and that's the reason nuclear is going no where. Further complicating any growth is the new designs have no track record.

Good one Cliff! But to be accurate, it should say "Saving on Solar Way Cooler Than Believing NISA or TEPCO".

Rhin, good questions. Starting with: "What does nuclear provide that solar will not".

Solar isn't 24/7 & is at most 3MWe/acre (assuming 100% efficient cells), about 25% availability (so 0.72MW/acre max), 0.15MW/acre actual, with present 20% cells. Nuclear is 24/7 (>90% avail.) & delivers currently about 20MW/acre -- newer designs easily meeting 100MW/acre & MSRs about 2x that.

So, as I've said, we need what Calif. & enviro groups support -- a) local solar on existing structures, b) efficient storage (e.g., via EVs too), c) overall efficiency (we now waste >50% of generation). And, d) 24/7 nuclear, especially via Th (and even 238U) breeding, as envisaged in 1962 -- some enviro folks are realizing this, including a Greenpeace founder. And wise groups like UCS, are only concerned with nuke safety, not its elimination.

No need for wind, wave or other environmentally threatening & inefficient ideas that want subsidies & hog land & sea. MacKay's "Sustainable Energy Without the Hot Air" lays some of this out. Etherington's "The Wind Farm Scam" lays out the wind silliness. And, Malhotra's "Cubic Mile of Oil" and Eerkens' "The Nuclear Imperative" explain the realities of power production.

I'm only "reluctant to embrace" what are expensive dead ends, such as wind & even hydro -- China, to replace just its present coal plants, would need to build 100 3 Gorges Dams. The one they have has already caused great environmental damage, water pollution, etc. And, of course, there's no more water in China for even another dam or two.

Another comparison is that for Canada to replace just its existing reactors with hydro, it would have to flood the Province of Ontario with water 80 meters deep.

Ma Nature gives us solar at the rate of 1kW/square meter, no more at the surface. Ma Nature gives us fissionable atoms (Uranium...) which deliver 3GWHrs/kg -- a city of 1 million running for an hour on 1 lb ()a golfball of Th/U).

Doc, I'm trying to figure out just exactly what it is in the grand scheme of things that I don't understand. I'm on board with you in the sense that immediately halting all nuclear energy production isn't feasible. I even buy into the safety record, being willing to ignore the horrific results of the statistically very occasional accident. What I can't understand is your reluctance to embrace what seems to be a much better long term solution. While I think that solution is solar, it could include wind, biomass, hydro, etc. if the consumer base is willing to support those concepts. Would you, for the sake of the uninitiated, stand back and compare fully mature systems? Assume that solar material production is accomplished through utilization of solar energy, etc. I assume you will say such a comparison is not realistic, and it is clear that you pride your position on a firm grasp of the existing reality, but I'm not thinking so much of our reality as I am of our grand children's reality. Having been a systems guy in an earlier life, I understand that sometimes the bullet has to be bitten in order to achieve the desired goal. What does nuclear provide that solar will not (in priority would be nice)? Thanks.

Or how about, "Saving on Solar Way Cooler Than Preventing More Fukushimas."

A "true environmentalist" would think he/she should give $ to a company that's crass enough to think we're crass enough to also buy: "Saving on Solar Way Cooler Than Saving Dolphin Babies"? Really?

Why not go for broke and advertize Sunrun's products as "Way cooler than preventing clubbing of baby seals for pelts in Canada"?

Naah, they already know they've got their cupidity hanging out.
;]

Sunrun's real point is that Renewable Energy is NOW cheaper than the electric company for most people! The commercials just use humour to make that point. They might even attract the true environmentalist who's been "waiting for the price to drop".

Calculation:
Take your monthly bill and divide it by the number of kilowatt hours you consumed; this gives your average cost/kWhr for the month. In Ontario, it's about $.18/kWHr/year-round-average.

Now guesstimate how many kilowatt hours your hybrid wind/solar system will produce.
Let's assume 500 kWhr/mo. x $.18 x 12mos = ~$1100/yr.

Now, amortise the installed system cost ($25,000?) over 25 years (solar will last longer, wind maybe less). (Ignore insurance premiums & battery replacement for the moment.)

We're at break-even NOW in Ontario, and our hydro rates are predicted to rise 7%/yr for the next 5 years, with even higher rates if 'they' replace our soon-to-retire nuclear plants with more nuclear.

In much of the USA, there are government tax breaks which can reduce the buyer's cost up to 50%, putting home renewable energy at break-even 2 or 3 years ago!

We all need many more similar commercials to Sunrun's. Please post as many as you can find.

And a non-juvenile approach is like this one...
www.sungevity.com/credo/index.php?ref=B

And Steve, you never called!
--
Alex
650-400-3071

These ads are very well done if, in fact, the message turns out to be true, it's the perfect demographic to target (unavoidable in our little consumer minds is the link between zero down and low price, so what's the quote coming in at and what's the APR on the installment plan?). The big guys either are getting it or are in the process of getting it, and the little guys may not get it but want it but rent anyway so will benefit from the big guys putting panels on the roof of the apartment buildings the little guys live in. While we don't know the details of the $68k quote mentioned by Russ (1000 sq ft or 5000 sq ft?), it sounds like more than I can spend without the availability of net metering that includes more than just a credit for unused electricity (send me cash every quarter if I've earned it - maybe I can pay down the installment debt).

Lighten up! I like the idea of flax in my granola and saving dolphins but don't get offended by these ads.

I know the kind of people who will not go solar because cost is their #1 priority and will shut their ears to those advocating a green earth. So if these ads persuade them conservative types to install panels, all the better!

At least the cost conscious demographic will help lower solar costs for those who want it for noble reasons and unable to act.

Sorry to hear that Russ. Perhaps it's time to contact your local enviro groups and see if they're lobbying your state govt. to engage in programs that support no-down-payment installs. All good things take some work.

Here's a nice example of a large church installation that simply makes $ for the collection plate, while reducing emissions: http://tinyurl.com/3znad4b Manna from heaven.
;]

Small problem guys, I just got a bid for $68,000 to replace my electricity with solar, assuming my roof sloped the right way which it doesn't.

Solar may save you a little money in the long run in very sunny places, but for much of the country, it won't, especially sans subsidy. I suspect most people buying solar are doing it for reasons other than saving money.

I'm in the "I like 'em" category, especially 'organically.' Clever. Funny. Effective. Way to go, SunRun. Give us more.

Good, Sue. And contact your local enviro groups, such as Sierra Club, because they may well have some advice and even special pricing through particular installers. One big thing to check is who pays for the interface to your utility, which is about $1000.

Here are the nuke safety stats...

http://tinyurl.com/3nwjboz
http://tinyurl.com/42wvr9l (PSI ENSAD)

As an advertising professional, I can tell you that these spots are going to work. The actors are playing a caricatures that poke fun at certain segments of the population. The message of affordability is a good one to drive home. I can honestly say that after viewing these, I will be contacting my local solar provider to get a quote. I've never felt I could afford it before but now I think, "why not?"

Steve, where to click, that is the question? On your picture & bio -- no email address. On your name at the top of this? No email address. Yes, that's blog hiding. If it ain't as prominent as this: cannara at sbcglobal dot net, it's "hiding"
;]
Or, call!
650-400-3071

PS, Sunrun should do fine in Bakersfield without a dumb ad, because it's here in Calif. and we have our "Million solar homes" program!

Couple things to add:

Sunrun says the spots will air in key markets like Boston and Bakersfield.

I haven't spent this much time talking about commercials since the Super Bowl. That probably bodes well for their effectiveness.

Doh! Vain! I changed mine, too.

Dr. Alex, not sure about your "hiding" references. Click on my name under the headline to send an email. ;)

Wow! Really turned the compost heap over on this BS! Cliff, is his usual Mr. Putdown with "flyingcircus, think for a moment", or me making "no sense".

Problem is, we've got at least two types of typists here -- folks who are in the biz to make $, and those who just want the best things to happen environmentally & economically. The same posturing could occur if windmills or wood burning for bucks were the topic.

The Sunrun marketers & Leone decided they'd try to differentiate themselves to the inexpert public by pandering Steve may be a "professional", but his writing here isn't. And justifying its snarkiness by demeaning the public's ability to realize PV's advantages, if they can afford it, makes no sense.

The various environmental groups and some states have already endorsed and are promoting local solar (DG). If Steve & Sunrun wanted to do service to the effort, they'd be clearly offering & explaining how they'll compete with the best no-down-payment, highest efficiency installs, whether for business or home. That's where the rubber meets the road on solar PV.

Playing cutsie games with eye-catching opinion titles, and hiding behind a blog is just wimpy.

I can think of few of my past customers that bought solar without considering how much they are saving. And indeed, at least 30% of the hundreds of systems I sold were really only concerned about how much they were saving. I think these ads do a great job of humorously bringing to light that solar is indeed at grid parity IN SOME STATES. Zero down and they save! Additionally, I fully agree with Cliff about the "brainwashed" demographics SunRun is targeting. Talk to any solar sales professional, they can repeat stories of folks who are spending $400 per month or more for electric, and even with a 30% or 40% savings with zero down lease or PPA, the folks come up with all sorts of bizarre reasons why they don't go solar. The most startling has to be the increase of AGW deniers. SunRun could run a dozen ads to target each major 'objection', but highlighting money savings tongue-in-cheek is a huge start.

I agree with Brian. Steve is a professional and entitled to his opinion, just as we all are here. Clearly, these spots appeal to some and not others.

Once again, I applaud the intention and the investment and trying to do something different and with humor, but... it's a swing and a miss for me, and apparently others.

mwjohnston1, thanks for the correction. Fixed, but I warn you that there may be others above and in the future. Forgive me in advance. :)

Cliff, you're right, they've got PV to sell and I'm really excited that companies like SunRun are being aggressive about letting consumers know that they can control how they get their electricity.

DrAlexC, I've worked with Steve for a while now and he's a total professional. And as you can see, he's participated in this comment thread, so it's totally unnecessary to say he doesn't have gumption. REW has one of the best forums out there for open discussions (like this) about communications and marketing in the clean energy industry.

Well, at least it's an actual TV spot. Don't like it ... run your own. So much of the message about renewables is 'it's expensive' - a message that the media gladly distributes for free. Someone has to seriously kick that can down the road!

I much prefer the numerous spots featuring American patriots extolling the virtues of coal, 'America's energy'. And, of course it's clean. If you want reality, why aren't those people coughing their lungs out. For the environmental purists, there's always those other guys representing natural gas as the 'cleanest energy on the planet' ... no sign of dead animals near the sour gas well, just daisies. I'm just waiting to see a CGI polar bear shilling for natural gas - possibly enjoying a Cuba libre on an Arctic beach.

Lighten up.

flyingcircus, think for a moment. The demographic they are targeting has been fully indoctrinated on all the reasons that PV and renewable energy is a "silly waste of taxpayer dollars." Sunrun and the rest of us combined do not have the resources to counter dirty energy's campaign. You and I know there is more to it than just the money. These adds leverage the results of the larger campaign and turn the argument on its head. You watch, they will work and the planet will be better for it.

The company that consulted on this ad campaign and the Sunrun executives that approved it for release are doing the environmental and renewable energy movement a disservice. This ill conceived advertisement reinforces negative stereotypes and alienates the very customers they should be seeking to get. It also reinforces greed. Frankly most people have had enough of that to last a lifetime. It isn't funny and it certainly doesn't make me want to buy your goods and services. Stupid.

Without knowing the area of the country where these TV spots are to be aired, its hard to predict their effectiveness. They won't work in W. Va. I understand the reasons, but disagree with most of the criticisms.

SolarFred, lets face it few of us aspire to life in a trailer park, even if the roof is 100% PV. I interpret the smugness in these characters being from their clever PV decision, not their comfortable lifestyles.

Brian, I agree that these ads build on the disfavor of environmentalism that has emerged from the oil-funded anti-AGW debate. However, SunRun has PV to sell and if the ads work (I believe they will) the result is positive for all of us. I also think the majority of these characters reek of conservative demographics.

Alex, again, you make no sense.

Geno, you're right of course - welcome to the world. If these ads can reach those self-absorbed, anti-planet bastards, then we are all the better for it. How many panels would they sell by calling them out?

Well, I say whatever it takes to make people switch to solar is fine by me. The big power companies aren't going to make these commercials are they? And big oil sure doesn't want you to know that you can run your car on solar either.

'Money' people advertising to people who dont want to think about the bigger issues e.g. biodivirsity and how important that will be to the next generation. Basically pandering to people who dont want to think about what there actions mean to the next generation. We get what we deserve, its a shame the whole planet has to suffer because of it.

This is what our industry needs, a realistic approach to selling solar to the public made palatable with humor. It works in politics with Sat Nite Live etc. and I think it will work here.
People are more likely to watch these commercials and talk about them, sort of Ayn Randish, the ethics of selfishness

I think these are good, but a la comments by SolarFred and others, should be taken even further, to include atypical solar users.
Sorry to be an editor on you guys, but when you speak of people being vain, it's VAIN, not VANE...
:)

This ads are made after a good study of market targets, it's the first time I see a thing like this. The targets are: 1. lazy anxius people that don't want problems; 2. egoists 3. anti-ecologist.
That's great, it took solar out pure dummy gossip with heavy satire.
Note: solar lack of market knowledge, everybody in the field knows about numbers and technics (so you do, I think), not about PEOPLE.

Talk about pandering to those Sunrun views as dumb & self absorbed! "Saving on Solar Way Cooler Than Saving Dolphin Babies"

No wonder recent reports that show 98% of US high schoolers inadequately proficient in science knowledge to enter college programs for degrees in science & engineering.

And the writer doesn't even have the gumption to include an email address to hear from those he depends on propagandizing!

About as unprofessional as one could be, even damaging to efforts of those advocating solar wisely rather than amateurishly. Leone needs an editor to quash his juvenile prose.

SolarFred, you make an interesting point. What concerns me is that we have to put down people who, for example, put flax seeds on their granola every morning or work for a company that may happen to like saving tigers. Those things are already being stigmatized by the people who use "environmentalist" as a derogatory term. I know we have to reach new audiences with the economic argument, but can't we do so in a positive light.

I'd like to see us highlighting the diversity of people who benefit from solar. I've talked to plenty of farmers, ex-military and others in traditionally conservative demographics that love solar. Would be great to see the same people you'd see in a Ford truck ad saying: "solar saves me money."

I'm not sure they're reinforcing a stereotype. I think they're instead using that stereotype to set up the punchline that it's about money, period. I don't think this would work without the snobby, vain characters. But I'm a big fan of satire.
And I don't think potential consumers have to identify with characters. I think they have to identify with a notion. This is a pretty clever way to go about that.

While I commend SunRun for spending the ad dollars to produce and distribute these, I think they enforce the stereotype that solar is for rich people, and they themselves have done studies that show the opposite. Nevertheless, the characters here seem snobby and vain, and the various sets/surroundings don't help diffuse that notion.

That being said, the message that people are going solar for the savings rather than for green reasons is a good one. I just wish they'd done it in a more consumer friendly way. Potential solar consumers should relate to positive characters... and these are self-involved at best, snobby at worst. Why would I want to be like one of these people and go solar?

Ironically, the more they publicize these, the more they will give ammunition to solar naysayers and hurt the industry, so I hope they reconfigure rather than spend a ton of money pushing this campaign.

Too Funny! It's nice to see somebody bringing solar to the masses!

Bob "The Clean Energy Guy" Mitchell