New scientific paper: offshore wind turbines alter marine eco-system, could shift ocean currents

[Brett]

 

["Roger"]

Three, and I will keep showing it to answer Brett's undocumented posts which have no links and no substance, just big headlines, sometimes with a picture attached.

Helpful hint. Google is your friend. All you have to do is type in the title and the source comes up.

The article is found in The Scientific American. Obviously another "very leftwing ideological organization."

Wind and Solar Energy Are Cheaper Than Electricity from Fossil-Fuel Plants

Even without subsidies, renewable energy is staying competitive with power from gas and coal

www.scientificamerican.com

 

[emeryjre]

The same old scam. LCOE = Levelized Cost of Energy which excludes the much higher system costs of intermittent sources like wind and solar. No wonder you resent my posting articles that expose that fraud. Lazard is a bank that services the climate industrial complex and so will always promote it in their external communications. We have no idea what their internal considerations actually are.

Wind and solar bring much higher system costs which is what makes them so expensive to consumers.

You are unwilling to examine LCOE calculations

I have shown you several ways you can calculate them for yourself and shown me how the LCOE numbers are wrong

I resent your articles about fraud because all they do is have someone yelling "fraud"

No numbers

No facts

Just someone yelling "fraud"

 

[emeryjre]

Since you won't accept the facts about the cost of electricity from wind and solar

Here is a chart of the input "Natural Gas" for electrical generation

Natural Gas Prices (1997-2026)

Interactive chart illustrating the history of Henry Hub natural gas prices. The prices shown are in U.S. dollars.

www.macrotrends.net

My favorite one is how natural gas has spiked this year

 

[emeryjre]

Here are real world example from NextEra Energy Resources (NEER)
It is a developer of large-scale wind and solar energy projects
It is a subsidiary of NextEra Energy (NEE)
A large corporation in the utility sector of the NYSE

Using Power Purchase Agreements examples from NEER

Do the PPAs deliver electricity at a better cost to the buyer

Yes — Power Purchase Agreements (PPAs) with NextEra Energy Resources (NEER) often deliver electricity at a better cost to buyers compared to traditional market rates, especially for large corporate customers seeking renewable energy.

Why PPAs Can Be Cost-Effective​

• Fixed long-term pricing: PPAs lock in electricity costs for 10–20 years, shielding buyers from volatile wholesale market prices.
• Renewable cost decline: Solar and wind costs have dropped dramatically, making PPAs cheaper than fossil-fuel generation in many regions.
• Corporate demand: Companies like Meta, Google, and Amazon sign PPAs to meet clean energy goals while lowering operating costs.
• Grid efficiency: PPAs often include battery storage, which reduces peak demand charges and improves reliability.
• Tax incentives: Developers like NEER leverage federal tax credits (ITC/PTC) and pass savings through to buyer

 

[Carolinian]

View attachment 119153

What these hucksters do NOT talk about is how much Farmland, Forests, and wildlife habitat this very land intensive project would destroy.

It also conveniently ignores the lack of nightly electric production potential from solar.

And, as usual, it is undocumented, with no links or substance.

 

[Carolinian]

Since you won't accept the facts about the cost of electricity from wind and solar

Here is a chart of the input "Natural Gas" for electrical generation

Natural Gas Prices (1997-2026)

Interactive chart illustrating the history of Henry Hub natural gas prices. The prices shown are in U.S. dollars.

www.macrotrends.net

My favorite one is how natural gas has spiked this year

"Levelized Cost of Energy" is NOT facts. It is a charade that ignores the heavy system costs of intermittent power like wind and solar. If it were the true cost of energy, then citizens of places like Germany, the UK, New Jersey, and Maryland, would not be reeling from the skyrocketing power prices that have resulted from obsession with wind and solar.

 

[HitchHiker71]

As I pointed out, conventional plants have always been set up for adjustments to output, but it is the "feast or famine" nature of wind and solar where they can crap out totally in some cases, often at times of high grid demand, and in others like spring and fall overproduce when demand is low. Wind output can vary a lot not only week by week but day by day and hour by hour. as charts I have posted show. I have presented quite a few links or videos to knowledgable people who explain why this makes an electric system inefficient and costly.

That's why most commercial power companies are deploying CESS's in a huge manner all over the world. CESS's do two really important things. One, they smooth out power delivery, which increases efficiency of power delivery regardless of the source of generation. Two, CESS's store power to eliminate intermittent power generation, and in the process, also eliminate the need for peak power plants, which in and of itself is a huge win for power companies and for consumers - as doing so eliminate the highest cost power plants on the grid - which are typically peakers.

I haven't read through this entire thread, and am not going to, but the key advantages of renewable power technologies is to democratize power generation and reduce the need for centralized power generation and having to constantly upgrade the power grid. The grid still needs to be maintained and upgraded however, to support bi-directional power flow - since residential power generation is becoming much more popular as energy prices continue to rise, which makes residential power generation more attractive since solar panels continue to decrease in price and increase in efficiency over time. This is also why residential battery storage is becoming more and more popular, including the use of BEV batteries for home power backup. We just installed a 21.5kKW solar array on all of our south facing roofing as doing so actually saves us money vs continuing to pay escalating commercial power company rates. Our average Kwh rate has increased from 11-12 cents/kwh to 17-19 cents/kwh over the past three years alone. Our state offers subsidized solar loans - 2.99% over 10 years for up to $30k of the cost of the array (around $285/month). For us, it made financial sense - since our state also offers 1:1 net metering - for us to install 47 bi-facial solar panels - and replace near 100% of our usage annually, given our average power bill is $425-450/month. Gross cost of the array was $51k minus a $6k rebate (given in advance directly to the solar company), minus $15k in federal tax credits, leaves us at $30k which the loan fully covers. So, essentially, we've cut our monthly energy expense significantly from $450 down to $285 per month. We did not elect to add batteries as the costs didn't make sense at this time - but that will likely come within the next few years especially given we own a Telsa BEV and doing so will allow us to use the car for home battery backup when needed. We should only have to add two Tesla PW3s with extensions to cover 100% of our daily usage on average when the array isn't generating power - and at that point we will be completely grid independent.

I'm not familiar with wind energy in general. I know it makes sense in many situations because the energy companies widely use both wind and solar to power well pumps and other infrastructure because it's cheaper to install wind/solar than it is to extend the grid power out to remote areas where the wells are drilled. This is good business practice, or simply put, the global energy companies wouldn't do it LOL.

Large scale solar arrays globally are now, on average per KwH, cheaper than any fossil fuel for commercial power generation purposes. Here in the US that's not quite true yet though, at least according to EIA data, which is what I typically look at for good data: https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=63485

NG is still almost half the price of solar and wind from an overall construction price standpoint. Long term the cost of solar wins out though. This is likely why 86% of net new power generation to the US grid consisted of wind, solar, and NG in 2022. Using an "all of the above" strategy is likely the best route to producing enough energy to meet demand. Couple that with the democratization of energy production, via residential solar primarily, and we've got a winning solution. It's hard to argue with solar when we realize that every day, the sun rains down 9000% of global energy consumption, daily, onto the planet. Harvesting even a small proportion of that "free" energy, is in all of our best interests - no one has a good argument against this purely based upon this singular statistic alone IMHO. Anyone who says otherwise, well, logic doesn't seem to be on their side when we look at the macro numbers at least.

This is also why more and more companies, particularly the MAG7, are now focusing on space-based datacenters as opposed to earth-based datacenters - because solar generation is actually even more productive in space given there's no atmospheric filtering to deal with. I expect companies like Google, Amazon, SpaceX, xAI and Tesla to start building datacenters in space that are 100% powered by solar and batteries. This also conveniently eliminates building out massive datacenters here on earth, which appears to be increasingly controversial - one of those NIMBY type issues - and often accused - somewhat accurately I might add - of being the primary driver of increasing energy prices from commercial power companies.

So, we'll likely see the embrace of nuclear (especially the newer/smaller/better reactors), solar, wind, geothermal and NG, among others, along with the continued democratization of energy production. Since solar is really the only power generation technology that works well for democratization of energy production - apart from specific use cases for wind energy, IMHO it's a no brainer to continue to encourage this technology over time. Sure, there are recycling issues with the panels and wind turbines and such over the long term, but that's something the industry can work on addressing, and is in point of fact already well down the path of remediating (same with CESS arrays).

Long term, we know, beyond any shadow of a doubt, that eventually all fossil fuels will become scarce. So from a macro standpoint, we need to look in new and different directions. Probably a mix of solar, wind (IMHO to a lesser extent), nuclear, fusion, etc. I think we're already well on our way to doing all of this, despite all of the rhetoric surrounding these topics, and I think, if anything, these efforts are accelerating, not declining, in velocity and adoption. I for one am fairly confident that with the advent of AI, we'll see some pretty nifty technological innovations over the next 5-20 years that will likely change things significantly when it comes to power generation and power storage. It's more a matter of when as opposed to if. I personally am looking forward to seeing where all of this takes us. I think 20 years from now, a lot of the debates ongoing today, will largely become moot. As is always the case, new technologies will come along that will win simply because they make huge economic sense and therefore, will see mass adoption very quickly. It's an interesting time to be alive with all of this in mind.

 

[Carolinian]

Helpful hint. Google is your friend. All you have to do is type in the title and the source comes up.

The article is found in The Scientific American. Obviously another "very leftwing ideological organization."

Wind and Solar Energy Are Cheaper Than Electricity from Fossil-Fuel Plants

Even without subsidies, renewable energy is staying competitive with power from gas and coal

www.scientificamerican.com

Google is nobody's friend. They have been caught with shananigans too many times. The Attorney General of Texas recently extracted the latest settlement from them for screwing their users, in that case over a billion dollars. I use more honest and reliable, privacy-oriented search engines like DuckDuckGo and BraveSearch.

Anyone who bases electricity prices on levelized cost of energy instead of the real system cost from it when it hits your meter box is speaking with a forked tongue. Oh, and that magazine is all-in with the climate industrial complex.

 

[emeryjre]

You are locked into your analysis

Real world figures mean nothing to you

Everyone is entitled to believe what they like

I am going to step aside from continuing to respond to your attitudes about the nature of solar and wind electrical generation since we are 180 degrees apart

 

[Carolinian]

That's why most commercial power companies are deploying CESS's in a huge manner all over the world. CESS's do two really important things. One, they smooth out power delivery, which increases efficiency of power delivery regardless of the source of generation. Two, CESS's store power to eliminate intermittent power generation, and in the process, also eliminate the need for peak power plants, which in and of itself is a huge win for power companies and for consumers - as doing so eliminate the highest cost power plants on the grid - which are typically peakers.

I haven't read through this entire thread, and am not going to, but the key advantages of renewable power technologies is to democratize power generation and reduce the need for centralized power generation and having to constantly upgrade the power grid. The grid still needs to be maintained and upgraded however, to support bi-directional power flow - since residential power generation is becoming much more popular as energy prices continue to rise, which makes residential power generation more attractive since solar panels continue to decrease in price and increase in efficiency over time. This is also why residential battery storage is becoming more and more popular, including the use of BEV batteries for home power backup. We just installed a 21.5kKW solar array on all of our south facing roofing as doing so actually saves us money vs continuing to pay escalating commercial power company rates. Our average Kwh rate has increased from 11-12 cents/kwh to 17-19 cents/kwh over the past three years alone. Our state offers subsidized solar loans - 2.99% over 10 years for up to $30k of the cost of the array (around $285/month). For us, it made financial sense - since our state also offers 1:1 net metering - for us to install 47 bi-facial solar panels - and replace near 100% of our usage annually, given our average power bill is $425-450/month. Gross cost of the array was $51k minus a $6k rebate (given in advance directly to the solar company), minus $15k in federal tax credits, leaves us at $30k which the loan fully covers. So, essentially, we've cut our monthly energy expense significantly from $450 down to $285 per month. We did not elect to add batteries as the costs didn't make sense at this time - but that will likely come within the next few years especially given we own a Telsa BEV and doing so will allow us to use the car for home battery backup when needed. We should only have to add two Tesla PW3s with extensions to cover 100% of our daily usage on average when the array isn't generating power - and at that point we will be completely grid independent.

I'm not familiar with wind energy in general. I know it makes sense in many situations because the energy companies widely use both wind and solar to power well pumps and other infrastructure because it's cheaper to install wind/solar than it is to extend the grid power out to remote areas where the wells are drilled. This is good business practice, or simply put, the global energy companies wouldn't do it LOL.

Large scale solar arrays globally are now, on average per KwH, cheaper than any fossil fuel for commercial power generation purposes. Here in the US that's not quite true yet though, at least according to EIA data, which is what I typically look at for good data: https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=63485

View attachment 119158


NG is still almost half the price of solar and wind from an overall construction price standpoint. Long term the cost of solar wins out though. This is likely why 86% of net new power generation to the US grid consisted of wind, solar, and NG in 2022. Using an "all of the above" strategy is likely the best route to producing enough energy to meet demand. Couple that with the democratization of energy production, via residential solar primarily, and we've got a winning solution. It's hard to argue with solar when we realize that every day, the sun rains down 9000% of global energy consumption, daily, onto the planet. Harvesting even a small proportion of that "free" energy, is in all of our best interests - no one has a good argument against this purely based upon this singular statistic alone IMHO. Anyone who says otherwise, well, logic doesn't seem to be on their side when we look at the macro numbers at least.

This is also why more and more companies, particularly the MAG7, are now focusing on space-based datacenters as opposed to earth-based datacenters - because solar generation is actually even more productive in space given there's no atmospheric filtering to deal with. I expect companies like Google, Amazon, SpaceX, xAI and Tesla to start building datacenters in space that are 100% powered by solar and batteries. This also conveniently eliminates building out massive datacenters here on earth, which appears to be increasingly controversial - one of those NIMBY type issues - and often accused - somewhat accurately I might add - of being the primary driver of increasing energy prices from commercial power companies.

So, we'll likely see the embrace of nuclear (especially the newer/smaller/better reactors), solar, wind, geothermal and NG, among others, along with the continued democratization of energy production. Since solar is really the only power generation technology that works well for democratization of energy production - apart from specific use cases for wind energy, IMHO it's a no brainer to continue to encourage this technology over time. Sure, there are recycling issues with the panels and wind turbines and such over the long term, but that's something the industry can work on addressing, and is in point of fact already well down the path of remediating (same with CESS arrays).

Never heard of a CESS. I did a search on it, and the results were like this one:

Cess - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I know Wikipedia is not the most reliable source in the world but others were similar.

Reading the content of your post, it seems you are talking about the big lithium batteries that are so prone to catch fire and have never really functioned that well. I have put up several posts on how they are not effective for grid level power except for short periods, and at high costs. You can scroll back and find the links.

Maybe you mean pumped hydro. In a previous post I gave a link to an article about such a scheme in the Australian state of Victoria. A defeated previous government had planned such a scheme but after the recent election, the new government scrapped it and decided to prolong use of their coal plants instead to 2046. Continuing to use coal instead of going to pumped hydro is projected to save the state government and its taxpayers $26 Billion and save each consumer $1,000. Go back a few pages and you will find the link.

 

[Carolinian]

You are locked into your analysis

Real world figures mean nothing to you

Everyone is entitled to believe what they like

I am going to step aside from continuing to respond to your attitudes about the nature of solar and wind electrical generation since we are 180 degrees apart

Levelized cost of energy is the opposite of a real world figure. It is a contrived artificial figure concocted by the climate industrial complex. You are the one who has a knee jerk level of support for the climate industrial complex which is harming our environment and jacking up electric rates. Nowhere in the real world have you shown wind and solar reducing power costs when it gets to your meter box, and that is the place it really counts, not in some contrived "levelized cost of power" that ignores most of the system costs created by the intermittency of wind and solar.

 

[Carolinian]

One of the worst things about the environment damage done by wind turbines is their slaughter of birds, and particularly large predators like eagles, which reproduce slowly. Wind turbines are the latest major threat to birds, threatening a "silent spring". Some courts have already started shutting down wind turbines to protect birds and more of that needs to be done.

https://www.cfact.org/2025/04/15/two-new-studies-imply-the-golden-eagle-cannot-survive-more-wind-turbines/

Here is a Facebook post by the environmentalist group Rainforest Reserves Australia about a key biodiversity hot spot and birders paradise that has been completely destroyed by a wind turbine project:

https://www.facebook.com/rainforestreserves/posts/pfbid0RGLdG2BGFMkapi9sXG6pp9w7aagog6LXXVaXAaVGQDvDuBK8VArue9qSsK2PUXUcl

It is not just the larger birds. The population of sea gulls on the Surrey coast of England declined by 99% after the construction of offshore wind turbines in the area.

Alarming 99% Decline In Gulls Raises Questions Over Expanding Wind Farms

Copyright © Jason Endfield 2026: all rights reserved. Disclaimer:- The views and opinions expressed on this blog are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or...

jasonendfield.weebly.com

 

[HitchHiker71]

Never heard of a CESS. I did a search on it, and the results were like this one:

Cess - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I know Wikipedia is not the most reliable source in the world but others were similar.

CESS = Commercial Energy Storage System - basically commercial scale battery storage. It's at least somewhat telling that you haven't heard about CESS considering the amount of investment in CESS over the past five plus years from all major commercial power companies.

Reading the content of your post, it seems you are talking about the big lithium batteries that are so prone to catch fire and have never really functioned that well. I have put up several posts on how they are not effective for grid level power except for short periods, and at high costs. You can scroll back and find the links.

Incorrect. Early CESS used LI NMC/NCM/NCA batteries - basically 100% of CESS now use LI LFP batteries - which have almost zero chance of catching fire in comparison. They function so well that a majority of power companies, including the majority of US based power companies - are deploying massive CESS arrays for the reasons I outlined. Power companies aren't going to spend money on CESS without doing a great amount of due diligence and will only do so if it's in their best interests from a power generation, storage, and cost perspective. Power companies don't deploy CESS for long term power consumption - as I said - they deploy CESS to moderate intermittent power delivery on the grid - and to stabilize the grid - which directly results in having to produce less power in the process. The proof is in the pudding.

As with any technology, there are pros and cons of course, but your points about CESS from five years ago don't really apply any longer now that CESS is on v3 tech stacks:

https://x.com/i/grok/share/kb1RWoVN2fzDt2T3b9zKc4Cn3

Q: Do CESS arrays allow commercial power companies to produce less net power and to minimize the need for peak power plants? Please provide summary bullet points followed by a detailed analysis including pros and cons.

A: Summary Bullet Points

• Peak Shaving and Load Shifting: CESS arrays store energy during low-demand periods and discharge it during peaks, directly reducing the reliance on expensive peaker plants by flattening demand curves and avoiding high utility demand charges.
• Optimized Generation: By enabling efficient use of baseload power plants and renewables, CESS arrays allow utilities to produce power more consistently at lower costs, potentially reducing overall net generation from inefficient fossil fuel sources while meeting the same total demand.
• Grid Reliability and Scalability: These systems enhance grid stability, support renewable integration, and can replace aging peakers, leading to long-term cost savings and lower emissions, though initial investments are high.

Detailed Analysis

Commercial Energy Storage Systems (CESS) refer to large-scale battery or capacitive storage solutions designed for businesses, utilities, and industrial applications, often deployed in arrays (modular clusters of batteries or capacitors) to handle significant energy loads. These systems, typically lithium-ion or hybrid supercapacitor-based, integrate with the grid, solar PV arrays, or other renewables to store excess electricity and release it on demand. In the context of commercial power companies, CESS arrays address the intermittency of supply and variability of demand, directly impacting operational efficiency.

How CESS Arrays Enable Reduced Net Power Production and Peaker Plant Minimization

CESS arrays do not generate power themselves but act as buffers in the energy ecosystem. During off-peak hours (when electricity prices and generation costs are low), they charge using surplus power from baseload plants (e.g., nuclear or coal) or renewables like solar. This stored energy is then dispatched during peak demand periods, effectively "shaving" the load spike that would otherwise require firing up peaker plants—simple-cycle gas turbines built specifically for short, high-intensity bursts but with low efficiency (around 30-40%) and high emissions.

• Reducing Net Power Production: "Net power" here can be interpreted as the total inefficient or excess generation required to meet demand. Without storage, utilities must overproduce during peaks to cover variability, leading to curtailment (wasted renewable energy) or reliance on costly ramp-up. CESS arrays shift this dynamic: a study on coordinated battery controls in distribution grids showed peak load reductions of up to 44.9% with modest storage capacities (e.g., 800 kWh per site), allowing baseload plants to run at optimal steady-state levels rather than frequent starts/stops. This minimizes "net" overgeneration, as the same total energy demand is met with less variability-driven waste—potentially cutting fossil fuel use by 20-40% in hybrid systems.
• Minimizing Peaker Plants: Peakers are capital-intensive (high per-kW costs) and environmentally burdensome, often running only 5-10% of the time. Battery storage has emerged as a viable replacement: a Clean Energy States Alliance report found that 4-hour lithium-ion systems are more cost-effective than new gas peakers in regions like New England, with levelized costs 20-30% lower when factoring in emissions penalties and maintenance. For instance, utilities like Green Mountain Power have deployed CESS arrays (e.g., 2-5 MW systems) to handle peak events, reducing exposure to demand spikes without new peakers. Globally, battery deployments have already deferred or retired peakers, with projections for 17.5% peak demand reduction in grids like the UK's via scaled arrays.

In practice, a commercial setup might involve a 1-10 MWh CESS array colocated with solar farms, storing daytime generation for evening peaks. This not only cuts utility bills via arbitrage (buy low, sell/use high) but also qualifies for incentives like the U.S. Investment Tax Credit, accelerating ROI.Pros of CESS Arrays for Power Companies

• Economic Efficiency: Peak shaving can slash demand charges (up to 70% of commercial bills) by 20-40%, with payback periods of 3-7 years. Utilities avoid $100-200/kW-year in peaker O&M costs.
• Environmental Benefits: Replaces dirty peakers, cutting CO2 emissions by 80-90% per MWh dispatched; enhances renewable penetration (e.g., storing 100% solar output reduces curtailment).
• Grid Resilience: Provides frequency regulation, voltage support, and backup (e.g., black-start capability), reducing outage risks—critical as electrification grows (EVs, heat pumps).
• Scalability and Flexibility: Modular arrays scale from 50 kW/200 kWh to multi-MW/MWh, integrating with existing infrastructure without major overhauls.

Cons of CESS Arrays for Power Companies

• High Upfront Capital: Installation costs $300-500/kWh, a barrier for smaller utilities; financing and supply chain risks (e.g., lithium shortages) can delay projects.
• Limited Duration and Capacity: Most CESS offer 2-4 hours of discharge, insufficient for prolonged outages or extreme peaks without hybrid setups (e.g., adding pumped hydro).
• Degradation and Lifecycle Issues: Batteries degrade 1-2% annually, with 10-15 year lifespans; end-of-life recycling is improving but adds costs and environmental concerns (e.g., mining impacts).
• Regulatory and Market Hurdles: In some regions, outdated tariffs undervalue storage services, and grid interconnection queues can take 2+ years, slowing adoption.

Overall, CESS arrays represent a transformative tool for commercial power companies, shifting from rigid, fossil-heavy peaking to flexible, clean dispatch. While challenges like costs persist, falling battery prices (down 89% since 2010) and policy support (e.g., IRA incentives) make them increasingly viable, with global capacity expected to triple by 2030. For utilities eyeing decarbonization, the pros outweigh cons in high-demand markets.

A list of the major current CESS US deployments with supporting data from EIA (check the sources used for the specific articles from the EIA): https://x.com/i/grok/share/tG7wsjykbRQqjLnGWjVTsltOI

It's worth noting EIA lists over 300 CESS deployments all total, all in current operation, not a single one has been deprecated for any reason. Again, I'll trust power companies that are making these major financial investments and key grid production decisions as proof of the viability of CESS to help stabilize the grid and lessen grid energy generation especially for peak conditions. Tesla's fastest growing business division over the past few years has been CESS, there's a reason for that.

 

[easyrider]

Using some hobby materials, I could probably fart and ignite it with a lighter and generate more electricity than your non heat capture panels.

Much like your post, lol.

Currently, the thermo electrical power generated at night with these panels are close to 25% of the power generated during the day. As this tech gets dialed in these types of solar panels will dominate the current panels because they produce more electricity which creates a higher ROI.

Bill

 

[HitchHiker71]

Much like your post, lol.

Currently, the thermo electrical power generated at night with these panels are close to 25% of the power generated during the day. As this tech gets dialed in these types of solar panels will dominate the current panels because they produce more electricity which creates a higher ROI.

Bill

Bifacial panels, which is what I just installed on my own home, coupled with a special underlayment, add roughly 10-30% additional power generation for my array, I'll take it.

 

[emeryjre]

Levelized cost of energy is the opposite of a real world figure. It is a contrived artificial figure concocted by the climate industrial complex.

Much like your post, lol.

Currently, the thermo electrical power generated at night with these panels are close to 25% of the power generated during the day. As this tech gets dialed in these types of solar panels will dominate the current panels because they produce more electricity which creates a higher ROI.

Bill

They sound interesting
Do you have a link to these panels

 

["Roger"]

My final post, but first...

Studies have been done (including by a friend of mine) about the number of birds killed by windmills. Often the estimates come in around 140,000 to 700,000 although there have been some estimates as high as 1.2 million. Even at that higher number, everyone agrees that the number of bird deaths from windmills is insignificant compared to the number of birds killed by cats, tall buildings, cars, and climate change caused by the use of fossil fuel. (I am sure Carolinian loves that last problem.)

I am giving up on this thread. Carolinian can just stew in his own misery., The good news is that people are voting with their feet (actually wallets) and switching to renewable fuels. Nothing Carolinian says and does will change that. People are voting against him.

Adios...

 

[easyrider]

Bifacial panels, which is what I just installed on my own home, coupled with a special underlayment, add roughly 10-30% additional power generation for my array, I'll take it.

It's amazing at the new tech being discovered and developed. I was listening to podcast conversation about a new process to capture an old idea of spinning electrons. I think they call it spintronics. Supposedly, the intent is to make computer chips faster but it can also be used to increase energy output in solar panels.

Bill

 

[easyrider]

The good news is that people are voting with their feet (actually wallets) and switching to renewable fuels. Nothing Carolinian says and does will change that. People are voting against him.

Yes, people are voting with their wallets but it doesn't seem to be for renewable energy. I say this only because incentives for green power are being eliminated, incentives for pipelines and drilling are back, emission standards for vehicles have been reduced and incentives to purchase large vehicles are back.

Bill

 

[HitchHiker71]

It's amazing at the new tech being discovered and developed. I was listening to podcast conversation about a new process to capture an old idea of spinning electrons. I think they call it spintronics. Supposedly, the intent is to make computer chips faster but it can also be used to increase energy output in solar panels.

Bill

Given the limited roof space on my south facing roofing, I may not have gone down this road were it not for the bifacial panels option. My south facing roofing is only estimated to produce roughly 80% of my total power consumption using normal panels. The bifacial panels basically will likely get me to 100%, especially considering we're also making some energy efficiency improvements to our home soon to boost up energy loss. Mostly just upgrading our attic insulation, removing our old whole house attic fan, installed radiant barriers in the attic, sealing doors and windows better, and doing some basement improvements (sealing the rafters basically). That alone should give us about a 10% energy consumption improvement. Between all of these improvements, we should get to parity on energy production vs consumption. As long as our utility offers 1:1 net metering, we may not add battery storage, but I'm predicting that 1:1 net metering won't last forever, at which point we'd likely install Tesla Powerwall 3's (or perhaps 4's by then), enough to basically meet demand during non-sunlight hours - at which point we'd be essentially grid independent.

 

[easyrider]

They sound interesting
Do you have a link to these panels

I can find one if you can't. I'm certain there is nothing wrong with your finger. When you find something interesting lets chat.

Bill

 

[HitchHiker71]

They sound interesting
Do you have a link to these panels

STEG PV-TEG tech article from Science Direct: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0038092X23001366

It's too early to tell if STEG will take hold and be scalable. The issue at present is the conversion is expensive. There was a recent breakthrough that Science Daily published in Aug 2025 here: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2025/08/250824031542.htm

Still remains to be seen if it's scalable and cost effective for hybrid panels. That's the thing with a lot of new tech, whether solar or batteries, lots of innovation, but 99% of the inventions aren't scalable, efficient enough, and/or cost effective, and therefore they never get out of the lab environment basically. I track battery tech pretty closely, and this is mostly the case with battery tech improvements of late. There's some really cool battery tech innovations, but no one can figure out how to make them work at scale for mass manufacturing in a cost effective manner.

 

[Brett]

Yes, people are voting with their wallets but it doesn't seem to be for renewable energy. I say this only because incentives for green power are being eliminated, incentives for pipelines and drilling are back, emission standards for vehicles have been reduced and incentives to purchase large vehicles are back.

Bill

The subsidy "vote" makes a difference !

.

 

[Carolinian]

My final post, but first...

Studies have been done (including by a friend of mine) about the number of birds killed by windmills. Often the estimates come in around 140,000 to 700,000 although there have been some estimates as high as 1.2 million. Even at that higher number, everyone agrees that the number of bird deaths from windmills is insignificant compared to the number of birds killed by cats, tall buildings, cars, and climate change caused by the use of fossil fuel. (I am sure Carolinian loves that last problem.)

I am giving up on this thread. Carolinian can just stew in his own misery., The good news is that people are voting with their feet (actually wallets) and switching to renewable fuels. Nothing Carolinian says and does will change that. People are voting against him.

Adios...

Your bird death numbers from wind turbines are much too low. The study by the Spanish Orthinological Society that I cited earlier with a link said it was a minimum of 3 million per year killed by wind turbines in Spain, and Spain is much smaller than the US. That was based on actual carcas counts at 100 sites that was then applied to all turbines in Spain.

And cats??? The most vulnerable birds killed by wind turbines are the large predators like eagles. If a cat and an eagle got into a fight, any sensible person would bet on the eagle. Indeed, there was a item making the rounds recently, complete with photo of where an eagle dropped a dead cat it had killed through someone's windshield.