[quote=no_such_reality]According to US Department of Energy, Solar is 60% more expensive in total than coal. 40% more expensive than advanced coal cleaning technologies and more than DOUBLE the total cost of Natural Gas in a conventional plant. And these aren’t dirty plants, these are plants going into production in 2018, so they have the current environmental cleaning factors.
So, new advanced combined cycle natural gas plants produce for 6.6 cents/KwH, and Solar production with photo-cells comes in at $14.4 cents/KwH[/quote]True for solar if centralized generation, not true if decentralized. Decentralized generation removes the electrical transportation costs including line loss and line maintenance. The line loss is actually quite significant. Go under any high power line, near the towers and you will hear a lot of ‘crackling’. That is actually an electrical arc, which translates into wasted energy. I am not even considering EM coupling with the ground and the losses incurred there. In some cases, you can take a long florescent tube and hold it while under power lines and it may glow (depends upon the voltage and current in the line).
What is interesting is that the tubes are pointing vertical, using earth as ground while the actual generated magnetic fields on high power lines are radial about the line. Looks like he is only using the E-field.
BTW it takes a lot of voltage to ‘ignite’ a florescent. My recollection is that you are looking at around 3000 volts.
Imagine all this electrical leakage over the distance that these power lines run (ie Hoover Dam to Los Angeles).
Having solar arrays on the roof also reduce the heat transfer into the attic, and thereby your cooling costs during the summer.
