Many people consider solar power to be a waste of time and energy. It is considered too expensive or too unreliable for use in the U.S. But I believe that solar power could be a viable solution to our energy dilemmas. As it is right now, I admit, solar power is not a viable alternative. But given the resources for further research, I believe it is possible that solar power could become the next energy source for this country. Look at this report on solar power in Arizona: http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/0708solar0708.html . You don't have to read the whole thing, although it is pretty interesting. Basically, the state of Arizona has the solar potential to power the entire country, with existing technology. Arizona is perhaps the sunniest state in the Union, so that is not surprising. It would also take almost all of Arizona being covered by solar panels, so this is not doable. However, if the solar collection materials were spread out over sunny areas such as AZ, UT, NV, CO, NM, Western TX and Southern California, this could actually work. If money were invested, and the technology improved, the possibilities are endless.
Now, I don't profess to be an expert in power. In fact, I know very little about it. But, it seems to me that if we have the possibility to collect enough power to power the entire country from a never-ending source, that all possible means should be used to explore ways to use it. I believe that finding a source of renewable energy is the best thing this generation can do for those to come.
I fully agree on your opinion of solar power. All this money went to Iraq and probably Iran war soon. If this cash would be spend on development of better cells and storage of this energy we would not be depended on Arabian countries for stupid oil that US consumes on daily basis. I don’t even go to impact on global warming and air pollution from power plants that would decreased.
Later
It is already a fully robust and well developed technology. I don't think it will replace petroleum short term but, it should be able to compete. Who knows, if we give it a kick start it might just take off and make us net energy exporters.
There are solar systems for residetial homes now that tie directly into the power grid system what you don't use goes back into the grid. if 1/3 off amrican homes had these sytems we would never need to build another power plant. we could run state, local,and federal facilties on these sytems espsecialy military bases.federally funded grats for this purpase would be wonderfull i have looked and there are no such grants.
There are states that do offer incentives for installing solar systems.
US Marine vet Vietnam 4/68 - 8/69 5th District, NJ
WALL IT UP
we can talk all we want about this subject, but until we take a page from historey we will never get a handle on the problem.THE THING THAT SCARES ME THE MOST sonner or later the terrorist are going to come accross there it would be easy for them because they have the money to do it and the smarts.If we wall it up like the great wall off china we can control who comes and goes at our choseing.If we don't the way off life they are running from will soon be in our country because off the wage to hour rate that they will work for,our make our u.s. buisnesses pay them minumum wage.? how will we pay for it those that are hear illegaly can build it for the price off us citizenship, if they don't want to get on the wagon,after the wall is done use the border patrol to round them up and send them home.they can earn thier place in america are thier not welcome here!
Solar is just one piece of the energy puzzle. Wind generators are another - Europe is way ahead of us on both, and we shouldn't rule out nuclear power, either.
US Marine vet Vietnam 4/68 - 8/69 5th District, NJ
sometime.
I do believe we should do as much as we can in researchins solar better than we are. Hell it would be free power, minus the coast of the panels. same goes for wind.
------http://www.myspace.com/sketical_believer------
------PROPS 4 BUDDHA------
Everything I read suggests that it is very low maintenance.
The only thing that concerns me is, do we have the resources to manufacture all of those solar panels and what waste products are generated in the process?
As far as I know, there really aren't really many, if any, harmful waste products that are generated from the creation of solar panels. There will be some waste, but no more than would be generated from creating anything.
I'm pretty sure we have the resources to manufacture the panels we would need. The thing is, the cost of producing the panels is a one time cost, so even if it is relatively expensive, it would be much cheaper in the long run.
At the moment you can power your house with solar, not cheap to set up. The up side is that you can sell any extra power your making to the Electric Co.
At this time it will take about 20 years before the panels are payed off and you can start showing a profit. Ya I said it, PROFIT.
------MYSPACE URL myspace.com/sketical_believer OR E-MAIL zappafication@hotmail.com------
------PROPS 4 BUDDHA------
I think we all agree that we like solar power and would like to see some of the oil subsidies, coal subsidies, free Cheney give-aways to buddies, whatever, go towards the tech and mass manufacturing so the average consumer can afford the expensive set-up and collectively take a huge stride in our stagnant effort to reduce damaging emissions.
So, what is the next step? It is very important for our next president to see this as a priority, correct? Who genuinely sees this as a priority who has a chance to win? I'm really asking, its not sarcastic or rhetorical.
What drives the cost up is reseach and development to make the panels more efficent and reliable, it really does not cost that much to produce a panel.
"Who genuinely sees this as a priority who has a chance to win?"
I do not have the answer for that, but that does not mean that members of Unity 08 can not find one if we all work togather (for a better lack of terms)
------MYSPACE URL myspace.com/sketical_believer OR E-MAIL zappafication@hotmail.com------
------PROPS 4 BUDDHA------
The stories about the homes that actually return energy to the electric companies is intriquing. I wonder what would happen if we took those oil subsidies and applied them to retooling hoomes with solar panels. I like the spirit of the above postings.
--Think also of the comfort and rights of others
This is just me running with the idea......
If we do convert all the homes in this country to solar and sell extra power to the electric co.'s, in time we can rework the system so everyone would be sharing the extra power they generate, like an "energy trust fund" we all contribute to. Basically free power, if you get where I'm going with this idea.
Once again, I was simply bored and throwing the solar idea around in my head for fun.
------MYSPACE URL myspace.com/sketical_believer OR E-MAIL zappafication@hotmail.com------
------PROPS 4 BUDDHA------
Germany has a program where you can get a state loan to put solar panels on your property and feed back into the system and they structure the loan so that the loan is less than what you save and/or feed back into the system. Basically "free", with the government providing the loan. It's apparently working. I believe Germany is now the leading producer of solar panels and there's a shortage. I have *no* idea why we don't do this. I have a large south facing roof slope but don't have the money to put into the panels. If it were a loan, I'd be excited to do it.
A Democrat seeks complex solution to simple problems
A Republican seeks simple solutions to complex problems
A reasonable person seeks simple solutions for solvable problems
But of course, you all know we can't transport electricity from Arizona to New York.
So that leaves us with another problem. What do we do for the rest of the country?
The Southwest can have Solar - but there needs to be something there to take up the power use during the occasional storm or cloudy day. The Hydro power of the area is already tapped out (more could be done, but it would have lots of adverse environmental effects). There's not consistent wind. Not sufficient Geothermal power. Coal? No way! Natural Gas? Nope. Oil? Are you crazy?
That leaves us with nuclear power. Its track record is excellent, and once the building is built (like solar power) it is extremely cheap. All necessary precautions to earthquake and etc... -proof the building should be taken, of course. But after that you have decades of cheap energy that can increase its electrical output whenever it gets cloudy.
Renewable first. Nuclear second. Everywhere.
So that means in the Midwest, wind first, nuclear second.
And everywhere else should be a combination of every type of renewable energy source, including tidal and hydro (but look at all of the environmental effects too!).
Then all we are left with is nuclear waste. No greenhouse gases (supposing you convert all of our cars to electric). No smog. No smoke. No miners dieing. No dependence on foreign oil. No wars in the Middle-East. No further hatred of America because they are polluting the world. And a moral high ground to criticize China from.
So what do we do with the nuclear waste? Well, we recycle it. 95% of it can be used again! Just put it through the refining process again and you have usable nuclear fuel! So what of the other 5%? Thats a little trickier. Right now it is being held at tens, maybe hundreds of locations around the nation. Scientists are hoping that congress will continue to approve Yucca Mountain as the repository sight. When it is completed, the storage facility will store strong containers that hold the nuclear waste. These containers will be packed in an radiation-proof, earthquake-proof (to those who say earthquake proof is impossible - we have done it to an entire mountain!), terrorist-proof, (and I believe nuclear blast-proof) chambers. It will continue to be guarded from attack for as long as the United States of America exist. After that? I don't think we need to worry. In fact, we may not have to worry nearly that long. I hope that two technologies will be developed in the coming centuries.
The first is a process to destroy nuclear fuel. Bam! all of our problems solved!
The second is nuclear Fusion. It is like having the power of the sun. Provide hydrogen and get literally tons of energy out. It is the holy grail of energy. Estimates for when this may become a reality vary, but most I have seen are from between 40 and 200 years. With some more research grants, it would probably be sooner!
I entirely agree with JFK, but more importantly research of facts entirely agrees with JFK. I wrote a research paper in 1997 which was basically just summed up in the above posting. The informed have known about the coming (now realized) energy crisis, the pollution problems, and the solutions that are out there. However, most of my family still pronounces it as G.W. does, nuculer, thinks everyone who works in and lives near nuclear power plants dies of radiation, and that each plant is an atom bomb waiting to malfunction and kill us all. As ignorant as my family members are about it, they are equally as stubborn to learn. It seems that we'll never move forward until the majority of our citizens are enlightened, yet the facts have been around for decades for any who truly care to look. Any ideas for 'awareness'?
p.s. If I can remember 10 years back, isn't the bi-product from nuclear fusion-H2O?
No, the by product is not water. The water you see evaporating from the cooling towers is not from the nuclear reaction. That is water that is used to cool the reactor. And the water vapor that is released into the air has never come in contact with the reactor, and contains no radiation or harmful elements.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_waste#Back_end
And the reason we can not do solely battery backed up solar power is the inefficiency. Solar power has terrible efficiency (but we are taking about energy from the sun here, and we do expect this % to increase), so when you try and store the energy in inefficient batteries, you have a problem. Besides, try powering your house on batteries. You will soon realize that it takes a lot of battery power. Constructing sufficient storage capacity is nearly impossible. So during the day you have the solar power churning out electricity, and the nuclear power on a low output mode. But then at dusk, nuclear power takes over the energy burden for the night, to be replaced with solar again during the day. Please remember when the most electricity is used; during the day and in the early night.
Oh, and Zappafan, the nuclear power station near you would never blow up. The only way you would die from a nuclear blast is if Iran gets its missiles or Russia gets angry. Reactor cores do not and can not "blow up". They would meltdown, releasing deadly radiation into the air. Which is why we have hundreds of safety blocks and hundreds of inspections - to make sure that in a worst-case scenario, radiation would not be released.
I'm saying nuclear isn't the best alternitive at the moment.
------MY MYSPACE was deleted. I dont know. E-MAIL zappafication@hotmail.com------
------PROPS 4 BUDDHA------
Good! Misunderstanding on my part. Sorry :{
Solar should not be left in the dark though (bad joke). Nuclear would be a great replacement as we invest more money into solar development. The problem with cloudy days is solved easy to day; the power you generate for yourself is store in a battery system of sorts. What would be better than an almost/basically infinite power source?
I live in Pa and there is a Nuclear plant close to where I live, maybe a 45 minute drive (hour at most, but doubt it), if that would blow I'm screwed. But, I have full confidence that it would never happen, and if does I wouldn't know the difference, so how cares?
I know it sounds cynical, but it's true.
------MYSPACE URL myspace.com/sketical_believer OR E-MAIL zappafication@hotmail.com------
------PROPS 4 BUDDHA------
JFK is right, use a combo of the two. As our solar technology improves we can forget about nuclear, but at this moment we realy do not have anyother choice. We need the power nuclear generates, but want the eco-friendly up of solar, so lets combine the two, until solar is effecient
------MY MYSPACE www.myspace.com/themanwhohasnoname E-MAIL zappafication@hotmail.com------
------PROPS 4 BUDDHA------
I had plans for a small scale solar panel setup for my house. Only about 300 watts. I figured that if I did all the work myself that everything would cost around $1500. So I started with four 4 watt panelsand I started experimenting. I then stepped it up a little more by adding three 15W panels. Things looked promising at first but I soon became discouraged. I realized that even a small 300W system was going to be a HUGE project and much more demanding than I could handle on my own. The reality was that it didn't matter if it was a 300W or 3000W system, this project was going to take a lot of time to setup and to have working properly and safely. Not only that, but when I calculated the overall cost/savings (BEST case scenario) I found out that it would take 6 years to recover the cost of the equipment. So I gave up on it. I didn't have the time or money to make solar power a reality for my household and I felt that it wouldn't be cost effective.
Now, I am looking toward bio-fuels. I bought my first diesel two months ago. I want to make biodiesel but I am running into some problems there too. The only way for biodiesel to be cost effective is get methanol at the lowest possible price, say around $4.00 a gallon. No problem, VPfuels will sell me a 50 gallon drum for $200. Problem is that I have no place to store a 50 gallon drum of highly flammable, toxic by inhalation, 99.95% methanol. I am certainly not going to keep it in my attached garage that get 100+ degrees in the summer, sitting next to my HVAC unit.
For me, making biodiesel from waste veggie oil is the most cost effective thing I can do. But, it will have to be put on hold till I am able to build a shed for the backyard.
Cost/profit ratio, and the work that one needs to do to convert thier home or car.
I still believe one of the best ways to fund research on ways to make it more cost effective would be to end/drasticaly cut back on the "War on Drugs" and use some of that money.
We need to stop wasting money on battles that can never be won and start "investing" in ones we can win (energy research and heath care)
------MY MYSPACE www.myspace.com/themanwhohasnoname or E-MAIL zappafication@hotmail.com------
------PROPS 4 BUDDHA------
First time I've been back in some time - good to see the site straightened up and a lot of new (to me) voices. As I make my living in the power industry (peripherally) I know a bit about it. I agree that nuclear is viable/efficient/reliable for base load and that wind, solar, biomass and geothermal can go a long way toward offsetting fossil fuel electricity sources. There will always be a need for quick turn plants that can be ramped up to handle demand spikes, and I'm pretty sure nuclear doesn't fall into this category.
There are too many powerful and complicated economic/political factors at play for me to go much into in a short post, but a few thoughts...
Suffice to say that any power plant - nuclear, fossil, wind, etc. is a massively expensive capital undertaking - an investment in private capital intended to generate a profit. Wind is growing massively only due to the production credits doled out in unpredictable doses by each subsequent congress. There are promising developments in ocean power, biomass and geothermal as well that are also provided for in the federal energy initiatives which are targeting 20% renewable power sources by 2024 (we're currently at about 1%).
The problem is that there is an inherent conflict between distributed generation (rooftop solar, small wind, etc.) and utility scale renewables. Everyone keeps talking about "the electric company" that will by your excess generation. Many states do have net metering in place now and do provide for this, but the simple fact is that to the degree that generation is distributed the capital expenditure on new utility scale plants becomes less attractive. Taken to the extreme - should we prove succesful at achieving massive distributed generation we will see a decay of utility scale generation, a reluctance to invest in new technology or certainly in new infrastructure.
I'm not proposing an answer here - assume as in most things it will be a compilation of many existing and yet to be discovered technologies. Just want everyone to rememember this is one of our most pressing problems, an extremly complex issue, and one which will require intelligentce at all levels of government to settle out.
Keep up the good work!
Mark Greene
Texas Democrat in the Middle
You said:
"There will always be a need for quick turn plants that can be ramped up to handle demand spikes, and I'm pretty sure nuclear doesn't fall into this category."
Did you mean Nuclear DOES?
Its power output can be changed almost immediately. The nuclear reaction is controlled by, well, control rods. Inserting or removing these adjusts the power output. IIRC it can go from full power output to emergency shut off (all control rods inserted) in just a few seconds (3-5, again, IIRC).
All,
This is my first post in the Unity08 forums. I am by no means an expert on energy, infastrucutre, government, or diplomacy. With that disclosure out of the way, below are my opinions on the current energy crisis and solar power.
I have attached a link below that is a good 5 part article on solar enegry, how other countries are handling their options and some exciting new applications/technologies in the solar power industry. For anybody interested in solar power, I think that this is a must read. It holds some very interesting and exciting prospects for the solar industry, from nano cells embedded in paint able to power mobile devices to government programs already in place to help spur the "solar revolution".
Link: http://www.cbc.ca/toronto/features/solar/
I live in Southern California and there are already government programs in place to help homeowners and businesses with tax incentives for installing and using solar panels.
There is a also a company in California called nanosolar (http://www.nanosolar.com)which has made astounding breakthoughs in areas of solar panels and their production.
Also, let's bring back electric cars! They are not perfect for everybody, but I believe that all two car homes in the near future should be able to have one entirely electric vehicle and one plug in hybrid. This would allow for longer trips with the family as well as the daily commutes to be handled with ease. Who knows, if they perfect the "solar paint" the electric cars could be painted with solar panels that would allow charging during the day as well as being charged over night at home! For those of you interested in electric cars and trucks check out these links: (http://www.phoenixmotorcars.com) and (http://www.teslamotors.com).
Well that concludes my ramblings, hopefully somebody will find all of this information enlightening and helpful.
Andy
P.S. I couldn't get the links to work properly in this board, so you will have to copy and paste the links into your browser.
To the guy who said we should've put the money spent on the war into building solar power plants. Why is it the government's job to provide power?
It was probably along the same lines as the question "Why is the it the government's job to secure oil?"
-GP
Let's do as The Beatles' said: "Come together, right now. Unity." Something like that... ;)
I cannot imagine the catastrophe of this nation deprived of oil. It would make the great depression look like a day without lunch. The free flow of oil is necessary to the survival of the nation at this time. Like it or not.
As prices of fossil fuel energy increase, free market forces will stimulate growth in alternative energy sources.
This is one gov't subsidy I could possibly force myself to accept, as it does "PROMOTE THE GENERAL WELFARE", i.e., makes energy cheaper for EVERYONE.
I like better the idea of gov't loans (not guaranteed) to support this kind of thing. Much better than just handing out the money.
Solar cell efficiencies vary from 6% for amorphous silicon-based solar cells to 42.8% with multiple-junction research lab cells.[6] Solar cell energy conversion efficiencies for commercially available multicrystalline Si solar cells are around 14-16%. The highest efficiency cells have not always been the most economical — for example a 30% efficient multijunction cell based on exotic materials such as gallium arsenide or indium selenide and produced in low volume might well cost one hundred times as much as an 8% efficient amorphous silicon cell in mass production, while only delivering about four times the electrical power.
Keeping them wired together is also difficult, solder doesn't like to stick to them. expecially the first and second gen. cells.
Browncoats Unite!
What I don't understand is why everyone talks about efficiency so much. We are talking about the power of the Sun here, even 9% sounds good to me. What you should talk about is the cost per KwH (including operational costs - which coal companies sometimes conveniently leave out). But even then, I recognize the limitations of renewable energy. 20% of our total energy output by 2024 will not make much of a difference. What we need is nuclear power as a base load, and a few renewable energy plants wherever they are economically and logically viable (i.e. solar in Arizona). We must address every solution we have - including carbon capture and coal liquification. But we must also realize that carbon-based energy can not be made anywhere as clean as alternative energy. Coal technologies are not viable long-term solutions.
For questions or comments on nuclear energy, please go to the nuclear energy thread.
At solar noon on a perfectly sunny day, solar engergy potential is 1000 watts per square meter. If you have a high quality comerical panel that is one square meter and has an efficiency of 12%, you get 120 watts out of the panel. Most panels that size and efficiency cost around 1200 dollars.
At those rates, you would need at least 4 to run the computer your reading this on. Thats not including the moniter. And thats just a basic rig.
Browncoats Unite!
...focuses on electricity. We don't use oil to generate electricity - we use coal. So, it's great to use more nuclear, solar, and wind power (I agree that we should expand these technologies!), but you can't expect doing so to reduce our dependence on oil. Crude oil is turned almost entirely into various fuels that cannot be currently replaced by electricity.
Granted, we could all start driving electric cars. Even if they perfected the electric car today, however, it would be decades before the gasoline-powered automobile died out. The fact is that we need oil bad, and we will continue to need it bad for at least the next 20-30 years.
Coming back to electricity - it's very encouraging to hear so much talk about nuclear! It is a much better source of power than coal. I believe there are two new nuclear power plants that have been proposed and would come online within the next decade if approved. These would be the first new plants in the US since Three Mile Island. I hope there are many more to come!