Solar Power Isn't Feasible

[lame54]

[madokie]

1. thats what some say

[newfie11]

30. It was interesting to see 400 year old homes in Germany with solar panels

And there were many.

[madokie]

36. Not only that it would be interesting just to see 400 year old houses

I think most houses have enough room on the roofs to put enough solar panels on them to power that home plus have some that could be fed back into the grid so as the folks who are not producing enough due to the weather or so could draw power from that grid. Each of us working together toward a common goal.

[Liberty Belle]

65. Germany is 80% energy self-sufficient now, tx to govt. subsidies.

[Taverner]

2. Yep - and we could generate enough power from the Mojave Desert

To power most of the West

[Hell Hath No Fury]

55. I just spent 10 days traveling through...

Arizona and California, hitting the Grand Canyon and Route 66, then coming up 99 through CA.

There were times we would drive for hours with literally nothing but an occassional funky trailer perched on blocks -- thousands of flat, super-sunny acres just begging for solar panels. I started to become obssessed about it, thinking about how many homes could be powered if we were to really commit to solar.

It is criminal that states like CA and AR are not going full-steam with creating the infrastructure for the inevitable future of energy.

[Junkdrawer]

3. There's a bylaw to the Laws of Physics that makes Solar infeasible in the US....

But, fortunately, it works OK in the rest of the world.

[ForeignSpectator]

21. Why, which bylaw would that be?

At least can't imagine it being feasible in the west and south when it's feasible for towns in central Europe.

[Junkdrawer]

27. The "Laws of Physics are Subject to Politics" bylaw. Powerful, that one.

It can make 47 story skyscrapers fall at a whim.

[The Doctor.]

33. Yep, it also bends probability and turns the near-impossible into the expected.

It's really something.

[madokie]

37. Yes it is, huh

I'm tired of all this I'm for me and the hell for you type thinking so many seem to be doing nowadays. We are all in this together, we are all just as important in the whole scheme of things as the next person, we each have different skills, all of which is needed to survive as a whole. Some of us are the lemons while some of us are the lemonade makers. :hi:

[ForeignSpectator]

39. Lol, I see... duh!

:crazy:

[unpossibles]

4. I had someone tell me recently that "we are decades away from usable solar power"

to which I responded that perhaps we should have done more research decades ago when Carter pushed for it.

[Winterblues]

6. Someone should tell Spain that

They get forty percent of their power from Solar.

[Selatius]

7. I guess this person you talked to voted for Reagan in 1980, who promptly junked Carter's energy plan

Oh well...

[unpossibles]

11. yes. He also tried to defend Bush's legacy when I listed a long list of his "accomplishments"

but could not come up with more than 4 things, one of which was actually true.

Shocking, huh?

He eventually told me that he will "not be sorry to see Bush go" and I asked him to remember that next time he is voting.

[devilgrrl]

12. And the Iranians are moments away from having nukes

The amount of bullshit fed to the general public is mind-boggling :crazy:

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

13. I guess the mid eighties were technically decades ago.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_Energy_Generating_Systems

[unpossibles]

14. I'm not sure what your point is

perhaps you could explain?

[liberalla]

16. "decades away from usable solar power?"

If we continue at the current rate, maybe...

Think how much faster it will happen when we have government actively working towards that goal. Amazing things will come to pass with enthusiastic backing and governmental support.

Take all the incentives and tax credits and freebies that are given to BIG OIL, and give them to solar. THEN, take a lot of the Defense and IRAQ budget and add it to SOLAR and other alternative energy sources. We'll be there in a flash.

Plus *** Every plastic bottle should have a deposit back on it.

[Hannah Bell]

19. more profit in making new bottles.

[liberalla]

25. That's something that would change if the govt. gets involved.

Under new management, the government could set new goals and priorities regarding the reuse of materials.

This would change the way people think, and change the way corporations make decisions. When there are incentives for using more recycled product in the creation of new products, companies will want to get their hands on the previously used items (in this case, plastic bottles).

Taxes and subsidies. You tax what you want to discourage and you subsidize what you want to encourage. Tax products in new plastic bottles, and have a lower price on products in recycled plastic (plus a nickel deposit back per bottle-or whatever amount).

Give the corporations tax breaks when 50% of all their products are packaged in recycled containers. Increase the tax break as the percentage goes up.

I'm just throwing ideas out there. It can be done if the will is there. If the government has the will to act on these issues, there could soon be MORE profit in recycling plastic bottles rather than making new ones.

[Mudoria]

43. You have some excellent ideas and many of these would

work. The problem is that folks that think like this don't have the money to lobby Congress and basically buy poiticians to continue to "do things the way we've always done them" as the energy companies do. Sad but true... I'm afraid nothing will change until that LAST drop of oil or ounce of coal is about to be used up.

[Revlon10]

28. I'm with you all the way

We HAD solar panels on the white house, Reagan took them out

ipods are not cheap still we all have one

thats all I have to say

[druidity33]

32. working on it

here in Massachusetts...

:)

bottle deposits on everything that is.

[BR_Parkway]

51. Just throw a week's worth of "War on Terra" money at the problem

that would be huge in itself.

[Art_from_Ark]

24. Carter pushed for it

and Reagan scrapped it

[Bigmack]

58. I've been mulling over....

in my mind about Reagan actually pulling out the solar array on the WH roof.

What kind of mind would do that?

I mean, the array was there... it was working... Why go to the expense of pulling it out, when leaving it in wouldn't hurt anything?

I suppose he was making the same kind of statement that I read over in Freepland one time. In response to the "one hour of no energy use" campaign, one Freeper said he was going to turn on all his lights and run all his cars for that hour.

If they swapped their brains with a jaybird, the jaybird would fly backwards.

[bigmonkey]

73. I read an amazing newspaper story on that, I think in the early 90s.

A U.S. science teacher was musing about those panels, and wondered if they might be surplus govt. equipment, and so available for use in his classroom. He traced them to a particular warehouse, they were govt. property, and he applied to use them. He got the use, but here's the kicker - the feds made him sign a non-disclosure agreement to not reveal where they came from! It seems they were embarassed by the misuse of taxpayer funds to remove the things from the White House roof. Nowadays I assume it would just be a state secret.

Of course it makes no rational sense to remove them, once they're up, until they've at least paid for themselves. The initial cost is the major reason it's not a more popular solution.

Unfortunately, this is just from memory, but it was reported in a newspaper article as factual.

[Art_from_Ark]

82. If they swapped brains with a jaybird

the jaybird's IQ would drop by 50%

[Art_from_Ark]

83. On a more serious note

Reagan had been a spokesman for GE, which is also in the electrical power business. And the nuclear power business. What's more, this was in the aftermath of Three Mile Island, and public opinion was turning against nuclear power. Having solar panels on the White House was sending the "wrong" message to the public, as far as the big power companies were concerned.

[IronLionZion]

53. Except for all those people who use solar power right now

bwahaha!!! I have family in India who got sick of the power outages and installed solar panels. Their lights and a few other things are run entirely off of solar energy although they are still attached to the grid for some things.

Ha! They must not have gotten the memo. They do it because they don't know they can't.

[crickets]

84. Exactly. If only we had listened. If only the next president had followed through.

But we all know who removed the solar panels from the White House right after Carter left. They're back. Sort of. Thank you, National Park Service, for at least a small step in the right direction. Again.

White House Solar Panel Goes on Display at Carter Library (pdf)

In June, 1979, President Jimmy Carter proposed a “new solar strategy” to “move our Nation toward true energy security and abundant, readily available energy supplies.” In an effort to set an example for the country, Carter had solar panels installed on the roof of the White House West Wing. The panels were used to heat water for the staff mess and other areas of the White House.

At the time, President Carter warned “a generation from now, this solar heater can either be a curiosity, a museum piece, an example of a road not taken, or it can be a small part of one of the greatest and most exciting adventures ever undertaken by the American people; harnessing the power of the Sun to enrich our lives as we move away from our crippling dependence on foreign oil.”

On Friday, March 30th (2007), the White House solar panel will in fact become “a museum piece” at the Carter Presidential Library and Museum. The solar panel will be a new addition to the museum’s section on President Carter’s energy policies.

“I think people will be surprised to learn how modern Carter’s statements on energy were when the panels were put on the White House roof,” Carter Library Director Jay Hakes said. “It was clearly ahead of its time.”


No, it was not ahead of its time. It was time, and unfortunately is now not only a museum piece but an example of a road not taken.

Yet.

[King Coal]

5. We use it all the time here. It works great. Hardware is expensive though.

But it is still less expensive that the power grid.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

8. Exactly right. Electric cars are not...

...feasible either. Leave energy related technological matters to the oil, coal, and power industries -- they know what's best for us. Now move along and get back to work.

[annabanana]

9. What about waves?

Are they unreliable too? (We all know that everything would ground to a halt at low-tide, right?)

[BadgerKid]

10. "Since the beginning of time

man has yearned to destroy the sun. I will do the next best thing: block it out!" -- Mr. Burns

[Wetzelbill]

29. nicely played

[liberalla]

15. and they don't own the wind either.

:kick:

[rabies1]

41. Is wind power cheaper than solar and more feasible?

[dysfunctional press]

42. it can be, yes.

depending on the area.

[Indenturedebtor]

17. Good post.

They have a shittastic argument for every doodooheaded puke in this country don't they?

I have a solar powered backpack that powers my cellphone, and my PSP. People are so shocked about it everywhere I go. I got stopped in airport security a few weeks back just so the jackboot could ask about it "But does it really work?" No jackass I just wear it to confuse facists :eyes:

[ForeignSpectator]

20. LOL! n/t

[ColbertWatcher]

18. GOP/Libertarian's favorite canard: everything is a commodity. n/t

[Richard Steele]

22. K&R

[ForeignSpectator]

23. Not feasible my a&§!

Heard about a German study that was conducted on a middle-sized city which said that if you picked only the best suited roofs (20% of all), put solar energy panels on them, they could power over 70% of the city. It was called "SUN-AREA", you can google it but links will be in German probably...

Or energy towers like the one that is built in Australia to power 200,000 households (!). 1000 meters high, with a large glass/plastic panel surrounding it above ground, the air heated under the panel flows through the tower/chimney, powering turbines.

http://www.newenergyreport.org/016709.html

There is a smaller tower like this already in Spain for experimental purposes and the idea for this came up in the 30's (!)


There are plenty of ideas for clean energy, many of them becoming more and more "feasible". And all the research done so far was done DESPITE the governments not because they encouraged it.

There is enormous money interest to keep things as they are so, by god, don't believe this bulls&!t that clean energy is not feasible and decades away.

The last 3 decades were wasted (on star wars and other "brilliant" crap) and now the same people who wasted them, tell us that all this is not feasible or decades away.

F&%k them!


PS : the cartoon nails that perfectly!

[and-justice-for-all]

26. Solar is the answer...

it may not fully eliminate the need for fossils, but it could be a tremendous offset.

Every new home should have a solar offset, and every home should have energy tax based on its square footage.

[Ian_rd]

31. Oh damn that's good.

As soon as someone politically-connected establishes a way to get rich from solar energy, then you'll start seeing funding and corporate give-aways for it.

[mcollier]

34. I wonder what that big a$$ International Space Station

Runs off of???? Its been up there for over 20 years. And what did those Mars rovers running off of? And how is it that we have thousands of satellites in orbit for decades, what are they running on? We have been duped...

[Ian_rd]

35. "Solar Photons Set New Price Record"

Maybe sun-inhabiting aliens will start visiting Bush and hold his hand on a stroll in Crawford.

Chalk this up to yet another aspect of the world hippies were right about.

[D23MIURG23]

38. That says it all.

[Just-plain-Kathy]

40. Wait until these oil guys own water. ..n/t

[redqueen]

49. And they are busily working on that... part of the WTO charter, isn't it?

That you agree to allow companies to bid on public water systems?

Or is that NAFTA?

[Blue_Tires]

50. hell...wait until they own clean air...

[leeroysphitz]

69. What clean air? n/t

[paparush]

44. Yeah..right. The internal combustion engine in incredibly complex

Thousands of moving parts. Plus the electrical system, braking system, heating, cooling, steering, etc..yet the automobile in incredibly ubiquitous and reliable.

Laying flat panels in a row is child's play, and a child (properly trained) could wire them up.

[Pierre.Suave]

47. Just to be clear...

internal combustion engines are incredibly simple.

They actually have very few moving parts.

[Aloha Spirit]

45. "we own the copper"

http://books.google.com/books?id=0EEtiJBEDPgC&pg=PA59&lpg=PA59&dq=%22bought+up%22+copper+%22oil+companies%22&source=web&ots=hrOrSIgzeJ&sig=BABiuHo2t1UMooOKp927k9rrC8w&hl=en#PPA60,M1

[reclinerhead]

46. Two more which are intertwined

"You want the ethanol, we own the corn!"

and

"You want some food? We used it all up to make ethanol!"

[Unca Jim]

48. Funny Comic, but...

As an alternative energy dork who drives an electric car I'd like to make a few points:

1. Most of the US is too far north of the equator to make solar panels on individual homes worthwhile. The cost is incredible for very little gain. If you have an actual winter with snow where you live it makes it even more difficult to keep the panels clear. It's noble to do it anyway...but most people won't unless it makes fiscal sense.

2. The "Solar Panels" on the White House were an early solar heating system which used the sun to directly heat water. It didn't work very well and froze in the winter -which was the ostensible reason for getting rid of it. I wish they'd put up modern solar panels with attitude adjustment motors so they moved in circuit. That would make solar look really cool to the average person. I'm sure solar power manufacturers and advocates could put something spectacular together given the opportunity; maybe Obama will give it to them.

3. With all the plains, lakes, and mountains, the US is a very windy country. Accordingly, wind is a much better option for most areas in the US. Of course whoever mentioned the Mojave was right on. There are some areas of the US that are very well-suited to solar.

Solar is not a cure all, just as wind is not a cure all. What we really need in this country is an actual energy policy. We have plenty of wind (which can coexist very well with farming), good hydroelectric, and good solar possibilities. We also huge piles of coal (which can be burned cleanly in modern plants with proper regulations), and if we used breeder reactors like the French we could get nuclear waste under control and make nuclear a better option. Again, perhaps Obama will start some of this stuff in the right direction.

Once we start getting more cars and houses on the electric grid (pluggable hybrids, electric home heating) we can finally start getting away from the oil and natural gas.

[MessiahRp]

52. The History Channel had a special that showed Solar Technology

and they made a claim that if the bottom left corner of Utah was filled with solar panels it could handle our power needs for the entire country.

If we wanted to do this, we could.

Rp

[Unca Jim]

77. Sure, but...

how would we get that power from the middle of nowhere to the rest of the country? The US is freaking HUGE. That's why power plants are usually near big cities.

[MessiahRp]

81. There's got to be ways to transfer energy over long distances

If we can send data over distances there has to be a principle that allows us to transfer energy over such a distance.

I just don't think it's something we have invested in because electric companies and corporations in the energy industry run it like a cartel where if they keep building localized plants they receive tax subsidies and can find creative ways to increase charges to a local customer base.

If the motivation behind this research were purely to create an inexpensive, renewable energy source that can replace how we do things currently, I'm certain we could find a way to do this.

Rp

[JDPriestly]

59. I've lived in Germany.

If they can do it, we can do it. What do you know about Hamburg?

Here is a chart showing the average temperatures in New York City:
http://www.ny.com/general/weather.html

And here is one showing the average temperatures in Hamburg:
http://www.weather.com/outlook/travel/businesstraveler/wxclimatology/monthly/graph/GMXX0049?from=36hr_bottomnav_business

New York City gets maybe one or two degrees colder in the winter, but Hamburg is not as warm as New York City in the summer.

Des Moines, Iowa is generally colder than Germany. But, then, we have entire regions of the country, especially in the southwest -- immense spaces in Nevada, Utah, California, Arizona, Texas and New Mexico that are warm most of the year and that see enormous amounts of sushine.

Yuma, Arizona has a 90% chance average possible sunshine.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/online/ccd/pctposrank.txt

It's just a matter of where the solar panels are placed. Once the electricity is in the grid, almost anyone anywhere can use it. We could probably do just about everything we want with solar energy out here in L.A. It is a matter of investment in the solar panels. I think people are waiting until they believe that the technology is fully developed.

[Unca Jim]

78. Great idea...

but remember Germany is cramming 82 million people into an are the size of Montanna. It's easier for them to institute solar energy because they don't have to send the power long distances.

It's also why it's easier for them to have good public transportation.

Again, I'd love to see serious effort in alternative energy here. It's harder for us than for them, though.

[Fovea]

68. The magick bullet for sustainable energy

is to realize that there is no single magick bullet yet.

In the example of a home in say, Iowa or Nebraska, one might employ solar, wind, biomass, etc on a local scale. In Kansas, wind is a winner, but so is solar.

Part of what we miss when we think of heating is also the value of thermal mass. I predict a lot more communities using earth contact housing and low wind profile, high passive solar potential designs using earthship style rammed earth/ in place vitrified earth/ slip formed concretions will be in high demand quite soon.

Lastly, if what I suspect is true about how the midwest climate will change over this century, expect to see a large scale rainwater sequestration program in place to catch the hyper-severe spring stormwater, and store it for the July-August killer dry heat waves.

The Hadley institute was calling for a 42% increase in Iowa rainfall by 2050, most of that in the form of extreme precipitation multi day events. If not dealt with, the flooding will be insane.

I predict a multi trillion with a 'T' dollar effort to keep the Missouri, Mississipi, and Ohio River valleys livable.

I believe as Hadely does, that the effect of higher vapor pressure in the oceans, particularly the C type climate coastal zones will cause higher precipitations, and higher static air temp will increase off season aridity. In essence, a monsoon/dry year cycles in the center of the US. The midwest (at least the tornado alley part) is a place which currently is affected by four geographic weather systems.

Of the systems that currently whipsaw us about, I think the Gulf and Alberta systems will effect us in greater and greater amounts. Our lows will be wetter and more destructive, our highs will be dryer and windier. The frost depth will be shallower, another plus for earth contact in the coming years.

The soil will eventually start shifting from podozol to hydrosol.

[cloudythescribbler]

54. I think I remember this very cartoon FROM THE 70s! nt

[Lydia Leftcoast]

57. So do I!

The more things change, the more they remain the same. :-(

[NBachers]

56. Nanosolar

The third wave of solar power

http://www.nanosolar.com/

[Jakes Progress]

61. Solar is only one part

of the equation. I balk at language like "we can get all the power we want from the sun" because the problem isn't getting more power, but using less. Solar Power, rain harvesting, wind power - all of which I do - also have limits. We have gone from the original ideas of conserving the planet to the idea that unlimited power is everyone's right. Each home should be making some of its own power, catching its own rainfall, and processing its own waste. But for public policy nothing could be of more benefit than a three dollar tax on gasoline to be used to establish better urban mass transit and a working national rail system. Eliminating about 80% of the airline traffic would be the second best. Back in the old Whole Earth Catalog days, we talked about ZPG. Is that a term most know anymore?

[nolabels]

74. Is it kind of like the "Solar Powered Bikini"

Solar Powered Bikini
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2007/04/solar_powered_b.php

It's all getting so confusing, has everything gone solar :shrug:

[yurbud]

60. that's why we have to do it without waiting for corporate America & their tools in DC to do it

[Tesha]

62. That's an oldie but a goodie! (NT)

[cascadiance]

63. One thing that would REALLY help would be to have excess solar power on grid get PAID for!

Here in California, you only get credit matching up to your energy consumption from the grid during off hours for the solar energy you put back on to the grid. In other words, you can work your energy bill down to being zero, but you will never get paid for the extra energy you put on the grid. If instead of this, when you put more solar energy onto the grid than you actually consume that would do the following positive things:

1) Pay those who produce the energy appropriately for what they generate.
2) Encourage energy consumption in solar energy homes to be frugal so that they can actually get more money back.
3) Energy conservation encouraged by #2 would also lead to more energy being put back onto the grid for others to use.
4) If the energy being paid out is being paid out the "market rate" for energy if one tries to do that energy trading scam that Enron did a few years ago, then the beneficiaries will be those solar home owners and not necessarily those companies. They might not like having to pay more to solar homes in their schemes if that happens.
5) Harder for energy companies to engineer "shortages" to up the price tag of gas at times, when so many others will benefit from these "shortages".
6) Will encourage those building houses to maximize the solar energy generation capacity of those houses instead of just trying to match the capacity to those buying the house (which might change, or would not be the same if ownership of the house changed, etc.). There is no disincentive of "overspending" for this capacity by efficient energy users if they in fact get paid for their investment in higher capacity.
7) Collectively more energy would be generated via solar energy on the grid, and this would be a distributed system with proper incentives in place to grow.

I think if you also found some way to equally benefit land owners and apartment renters with some of this solar energy generation, perhaps you could also incentivize the rental market to also invest in solar, which would be a big win here in California too, as many renters as we have here.

[raystorm7]

64. So true,,,Only thing that will get us off our lazy asses is if another country makes the breakthru.

[Greyhound]

80. There are several breakthroughs that have already been made, you can just be sure

that they will never be spoken of here in the Corporate Police States of America.

[frog92969]

66. A Battery! A Battery! My Kingdom for A Battery!

Every alt-energy head knows that the bottleneck is in the batteries.

So how much $ do they get in R&D? I can bet it's less than they spent on Bubba's impeachment but I'd like to know how insulting of an amount it really is.

Meanwhile the rich get richer, the poor get poorer, and power (political only) continues to migrate upwards.



BTW What about Tesla's theory of grounding the stratosphere for a continuous 650,000 KW, most of his other theories were proven correct. But we're not supposed to know that, thanks to Henry Ford and his good buddy Edison the name Tesla was deminished to sideshow spark maker.

Who designed the AC generators that went into Niagra? Riddle me that.

:banghead:

[Unca Jim]

79. Tesla

I love Tesla, but one of the main reasons he had troubles was his unwillingness to make money on his many inventions and funnel that into further research and development. Of course assholes like Edison beat on him too.

The grounding the stratosphere idea is a good one, but materials do not exist to build a tower high enough. As an aside , lack of strong enough materials is the same problem with a space elevator.

To answer your question: The batteries for electric cars already exist and will be used in the huge number of pluggable hybrid cars that will be coming out in the next few years.

[Jack Rabbit]

67. I believe that cartoon is over thirty years old

The oil companies acted against the public interest by propagating against doing anything to alleviate the effects of climate change caused by overuse of fossil fuels or preparing for a shortage of fossil fuels, now upon us, by developing alternate sources of energy.

It's time to liberate solar and wind power. Do the oil companies own any interest in alternative energy? If so, they should be forced to divest in order to release its potential. Should we care what becomes of Big Oil? No more than Lee Raymond cared about what became of our planet.

[Fovea]

71. Nationalize Oil, Coal, and Natural Gas

and the problem of technology suppression goes away.

[thunder35]

72. sounds like you would prefer a markist country

vs Freedom

[Fovea]

75. I don't think so

I think that a mixed private public model, such is the case in
many of the nations we buy oil from.

I think that there is a lot of virtue in a regulated capitalist system for manufactured items, media products, journalism, agriculture, and anything, really that is not energy, transportation, civil service, military or healthcare. Go for it. But the above are commons, and should remain so.

America was a lot healthier in most senses of the term when we had extensive commons. It was the saving grace of the gilded age, that they also had a sense of the value of the commons. We will regain it, I suspect.

I do have a bias for smaller private holdings over corporations. I so see the usefulness of larger corporate concerns, but not corporate personhood.

Does this make me Marxist?
No. It makes me a Social Democrat, in the EU mold.

Are you a laisser faire capitalist?

[HughBeaumont]

85. If you're going to throw out RW insults, at least SPELL them correctly.

"Markist". Yeah, Feel the Vibration. Sheesh.

[defendandprotect]

70. Let's put the few who own everything out of business --- nationalize our natural resources --- !!!

[earth mom]

76. Yep, that's it in a nutshell.

:grr: