🚀 go-pugleaf

On 9/03/2013 10:09 AM, benj wrote:
> On Sat, 09 Mar 2013 08:50:32 +0800, jg wrote:
>
>> I was a little surprised that they produce at least 3/4 as much power in
>> winter.
>
> You are doubtless surprised at any real facts or science. You imaginative
> greenies all have huge wet dreams over the myriad breathless media
> nonsense describing Solar as some kind of world savior. You need to
> actually get off your fat ass and BUY some solar panels. Or at minimum
> TALK to someone who actually owns some!
>

I do, and you apparently... don't.


> They have their uses, but subbing for fossil fuels ain't one. They are
> expensive, toxic to make and don't produce nearly enough power to be
> competitive. Plus, you have to store the energy and battery technology
> currently sucks big time. Plus, if you want decent output, you need to
> have them track the sun.
>

Yeah, we use them to provide about 6kWh a day - it's a lot off the power 
bill, even without subsidies.


> The trouble with you clowns is you see some brainless media piece where
> every parameter has been optimized to produce some imaginary performance
> and then it's quoted high and low as if it's real. Media is written by
> professional liars. It's simple as that.
>

I agree, the media is no place to look for scientific information.


> If you want a thermometer on a mountaintop nothing beats solar panels.
> And when the end comes, a bank of solar panels to run your portable TV or
> LED lamp, may be better than sitting in the dark, but is sure AIN'T gonna
> replace your electric meter.
>
> And on top of that, have you stupid greenies thought about what covering
> Texas with solar panels will do to Global Warming? I didn't think so.
>
>
It would shade the ground, if that's your point?