What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
Take Advantage of Ridiculously Low Holiday Airfares view!
travelzoo.com - Flights $52 and up for Thanksgiving, Christmas & New Year. But move on it now.
88 Comments
- lengau, on 10/11/2007, -9/+61It would be nice if we could do it. In fact, perhaps larger houses (the ones that cost >$1 million) should have mandatory solar.
- swordedge, on 10/11/2007, -3/+44Solar Panels will show up on roofs without subsidies simply by economics. Once the price/efficiency/demand equation gets reasonable, people will do it without government help.
- lengau, on 10/11/2007, -6/+45What does Al Gore's energy usage have to do with this? I was suggesting more expensive houses be fitted with solar panels because the cost would make less of a dent on the price than it would on a cheaper house.
- EochaidRiata, on 10/11/2007, -3/+32"perhaps larger houses should have mandatory solar."
Solar panels should be installed where they have the greatest EROEI.
http://www.azsolarcenter.com/arizona/images/solmap.gif
Forcing people to install solar panels in Ohio or New York would be a huge waste of resources when the same panel could generate 400% more electricity over its lifetime if installed in a more appropriate geographical location. - jhnewt, on 10/11/2007, -0/+23Hmmm, your idea to kill babies to reduce C02 emissions intrigues me. I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
- Artifez, on 10/11/2007, -0/+19Once solar's efficiency and cost is refined just a little bit more it will be a serious contender to power everything. Storage (as always) is an issue but with more efficient electrolysis techniques hydrogen could be a viable option. The great thing about it is at it doesn't have to be ultra-efficient because sunlight is plentiful and free, all it has to do is recoup the original costs.
- Error601, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1220 feet below grade gets you a water well here.
- kakapu4u, on 10/11/2007, -1/+13One rule that seems to guide digg:
If you make a comment that happens to be buried, don't make further comments claiming how you're being misunderstood. - inactive, on 10/11/2007, -0/+11GEOTHERMAL! Going down 20 feet below grade and you will find an amazing energy source. In central Florida where I live it would eliminate air conditioning. In New York where I used to live it would heat the house to 50 deg F. so there would be only 15 degree days to add.
Solar gets you high, but Geothermal is the thunder down under! - jmpeagle, on 10/11/2007, -0/+10why would someone be against the OPTION? Why do 10% of Americans not want people to have the OPTION of having solar panels installed? I doubt 10% of Americans work for energy firms.
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -1/+11It just means that 10% of people probably didn't understand the question
- Sxeptomaniac, on 10/11/2007, -0/+9I live in California's Central Valley. We often go around 6 months without seeing a drop of rain. The things should be mandatory on everything they build out here.
- happytron, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6Ermm... false dichotomy?
- KyjL, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6@ cliffzdude
Clearly you've never lived on Long Island. There are very few houses there that AREN'T >= $1 mil. - Jyaif, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6Only 80% of Americans know what solar power is. Since they answered randomly, half of the 20% answered yes.
Hence the 90%. - inactive, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6Slightly off topic, WHY the ***** do Hybrid vehicles not come with a solar roof??
I mean, COME ON!!! USE LOGIC!!!! - inactive, on 10/11/2007, -1/+6I agree, and even while storage is a big issue, power delivered by solar during peak times (midday AC use in the summer) can definitely curb the load from other sources. While I definitely am a believer that direct solar power is not enough to solve all our energy needs and some solution will be necessary, I think it is a great idea and needs to be utilized as much as feasible.
- unangst, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4What about a simple plug and play solution for adding solar on existing housing stock?
I'd give a weekend of my time and a few hundred bucks to add solar to my 1920's home... but until a vendor has a fairly simple solution (think LEGO simplicity) for those of us familiar with electricity but without EE degrees, we may not see solar adoption for the common man.
If your company has a simple solution for solar for the masses, let us know. I think most of us are ready - but the product doesn't exist yet. - dasilva333, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5fta: 56 percent would be interested in learning more about solar for their homes if the system could be obtained for zero money down and their utility bills would be lowered right away
if the goverment could actually subsidize the cost of getting solar panels installed in every home that would help a lot with the zero money down - s1nister, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4@EochaidRiata
I think the point is that the roofs of houses in America aren't being utilized for anything right now. That's why it'd be beneficial to utilize this space for solar panels, instead of just wasting precious sun surface area. - obliviousfool, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4I can't put solar panels on my home either because I live in a "historic neighborhood" and the neighborhood association has decided that solar panels don't look very historic.
- DiggChainey, on 10/11/2007, -2/+5I recently purchased a home in a city in Pennsylvania which it is illegal to put solar panels on my home..(or wind) A local law passed because the power company pushed for it..
- soccerman90, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3My roof is wasted space. Instead of shingles why not put up solar panels. Even though they are expensive they will eventually pay for themselves and start to save me money. Also there was just an article on Digg about how there are now solar panels with 40% efficiency
- Error601, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4That won't happen because you have to do any electrical installation to code. It could be deadly otherwise. Most people don't even know how to replace a circuit breaker in their panel.
- earthwormzim, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3Too bad 90% of statistical claims are pulled right out of the ***** of the person making the claims.
- Aadain, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3Well, some people may think they are ugly and wouldn't want them making their neighborhoods less pretty. Ever read those gated community housing agreements? Want to paint your front door green? It better be the right shade of green or your screwed. While I doubt 10% of those surveyed are in this category, it could account for a chunk.
- happytron, on 10/11/2007, -7/+10"...should have mandatory solar."
"if the goverment could actually subsidize..."
Maybe if all the solar energy advocates stopped posting these inane messages and actually bought the damn panels, instead of expecting as much from rich people and/or governments, the prices would actually drop. - speedmaster, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3It's available right now for anyone that wants it, and wants to buy it. I don't see the problem.
- sproket, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3Who cares what 90% of Americans think? Clearly not their fascist government.
- codyman, on 10/11/2007, -2/+5Solar needs to get more output and lower prices before people will buy it in bulk... although it has been, and still is an option for a lot of pool owners (and quite a few people in my neighborhood with pools take advantage of solar heaters)
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3Most people in states that have lots of clouds don't have NEARLY enough rooftop space to power all their energy needs. If you think people in the northeast can go off the grid, you are sadly mistaken as to the efficiency of solar power.
- drakethegreat, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Just for the heck of it I figure its a good time to go through the why people think it should be available so that the 10% may be enlightened as to why they are complete idiots (disrespect intended in this case).
So lets say you don't buy the whole global warning bit, you think its silly because of the 100 years of stats, people put opinion in it so forth. Thats fine but keep in mind fossil fuels as still not as good of a supply as sunlight so its worth pursuing. So then someone would say but we still have 200 years or more with some fuels and thats longer then I plan to be around, let someone else figure that out later. Here is the thing, this is Bush's opinion on the issue. Now the problem with this is that without getting into environmental arguments its still a ***** idea. As a leader you are going to tell the people that you are fine with living the status quo, you don't want to be the leader who actually oversaw or lived during the time when it was actually solved... Thats absurd and proves that you indeed are a mediocre president who finds things that are hard to solve not something to be concerned with. So next time you here someone use that argument make sure to point out how underwhelming their life must be to want to go that route. - magic6435, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2"solar electricity should be an option for all new home construction,"
When the hell has it not been an option.... 3 of the houses on my block have solar panels..... and i live in Detroit! - obliviousfool, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2@mdhauke
"that number goes down to %10 once they find out that it would cost them a bit more money"
I doubt that's true, but either way this is why we should be talking about this in relation to new home construction. In the case of new construction the cost would be spread out over the life of the mortgage! You wouldn't really notice the cost of it. You would only notice the savings on your electric bill. - earthwormzim, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Haha! Trudat, homie! When the hell has it not been an option? My grandpa has had a solar panel on his roof since the early 90s for heating his pool.
- Salzar, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2How do you make solar cells, with puppy dogs and love. Batteries and solar panels both require nice and toxic production methods. So before the hippies change the world to solar power, and make a bigger pollution problem, people should look at the full life cycle of the products. How do you dispose of your hybrid car, the local creek?
- TheBasass, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3Last time I checked there is no law preventing the use of solar power on any home, new or otherwise. So does this mean 10% of people think it should be illegal to use solar power on your home?
- gta3mobster, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1"Nuclear" is not mentioned once in any comments or in the article. I usually don't blatantly insult, but you people are ***** idiots.
People need to quit being such pussies.
If one nation wants to create nuclear warfare against another it's going to do so. Fission is our most efficient, easiest/most cost effective implementation to solve global warming/high oil prices/etc. Aren't Americans supposed to be the world image/most powerful/leadership role model for the world?? I would expect that from the strongest democratic nation (currently). How come France, the biggest pussy country (according to most Americans), like 80% of the power is nuclear? I am an American and this pisses me off!
Taken from Wiki: "A large nuclear reactor produces 3 cubic metres (25-30 tonnes) of spent fuel each year." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power
Also shuttle info from wiki: "Mass 2,029,203 kg (4,474,574 lb)" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle
Those are hella dense blocks, but 3 meters^3 PER YEAR is a TINY amount of space for what's created. 30 * 2000 lbs = ~60k lbs. 60,000 lbs < ~4,400,000 lbs
Now I'm not a rocket scientist (nor nuclear... *har*) but if R&D is put into nuclear technology, I would suspect our current technology would become obsolete very quickly. Currently rockets use liquid hydrogen/oxygen/nitrogen as fuel from what I see. Perhaps a type a nuclear fission could be used to transport nuclear waste outside of the planet? Look at how advanced computers currently are compared to the ones used in the existing plants...
Before arguments begin about that idea to send waste away from Earth, there are so many possible ideas, it's pointless to argue about what could be done (seeing as it won't happen at this point in time). Just the idea though, to find a way to transport the waste away from Earth safely, would eliminate the majority of the tangible problems with nuclear energy.
If a country wants to end another, it will do so... Regardless if nuclear power plants exist or not.
Nuclear power will solve the global warming problem if global warming is caused by carbon emissions. A full switch to electric vehicles could be used. Nuclear power plants would be able to supply a whole America worth of cars, with virtually no emissions compared to current energy plants. Maybe standard car batteries can be replaced with ADVANCED batteries and the space savings can be used to store spent Uranium? (there would be a massive space surplus...)
Create a 10,000 sq foot solar panel setup and weigh it. Get that much Uranium. Compare energy creation results. Compare how much it costs to create that amount of energy. (ie. Uranium = incredibly cheap in comparison. Power production of solar panel = not even comparable to nuclear energy (~0).)
The technology for nuclear bombs already exists. Why does this make us fear nuclear power plants? If nuclear attacks are to occur, they will occur with or without the plants.
Again, QUIT BEING PUSSIES. Solar power is extremely inefficient. How much energy does it take to create those stupid solar panels? I'd like to know that. People need to quit being such yuppies and use their brains... Or at least take a chemistry class. - wbgo, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1The problem is, if we were using nuclear for all our energy needs, the uranium would be gone more quickly than the coal and oil are disappearing now.
- radio1mike, on 10/11/2007, -0/+11) We never should have abandoned nuclear power after Three Mile Island. Seven years later, Chernobyl happens and shows us what a real nuclear disaster looks like. Meanwhile- our dependency increased on oil and coal. Frankly, I am not even against coal fired plants as long as they are clean plants.
2) Give full tax credits (entire purchase price) for homeowners who opt to install solar power.
3) Support alternative energies in your locality. Here in MA, we have two extremes:
a) The Cape Wind Project: wind farm 8 miles off the coast of the islands would privide more than half of electricity to the Cape and the Islands. Ted Kennedy says he's for wind power, but oh not there -it may be a slight blemish on his ocean views. Or Mike Wallace's. Or Carly Simon's. Or whoever's.
b) Hull MA: about 6mi SE of Boston, this community has two significant wind turbines- one at each end of the penisula. They provide power to the community, and they are planning to add (I think) two more to totally take the community off the grid.
Support energy choices in your community. - LibertyVista, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Solar is available and obtainable for all homes. It can be installed at the time of construction of the home, or it can be retrofitted to an existing home. If it did save money, people would install it and some people have it, usually for pools.
- pivovy, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1I wonder what reason are they going to come up with in an attempt to ban this
- bubba9999, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1You already admitted that you're not a rocket scientist. Why should we listen to you then?
- earthwormzim, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Saying that "90% of Americans think solar should be available for all new home construct" implies that 10% think that it should not be available or that it is not already available. That 10% are either just control-mongering freaks, or ***** retards. I mean, isn't it already pretty much available to anyone who wants to buy it? If I'm not mistaken, I could go out and buy some today...if I had the money. And to those who think that it should not be available...hey, ***** you and your opinions, buddy. Everything that exists should be available to me...again, if I had the money to pay for it, that is!
- GamerzCorner, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Well the are solar companies out there such as solarfun power that install the system for free and give you the panels for free.
the catch is the lock you in at the current electric rate for the next 10 years.
And you pay for the power they generate
after the ten years. its all yours no strings attached
Very good investment for people that can't afford to drop 50k on a solar system. and you don't pay any extra money...you just have to wait ten years before you benefit from it. but if you look at the big picture why wouldn't you do this - x2wenty4x, on 10/11/2007, -0/+190% my ass
- bizchris, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Modest_Proposal
- HippyJM, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1NY state governor mansion:
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2007/05/greening_the_ne.php - scottykempf, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1I agree with the comment about people not wanting wind turbines in their backyards. They seem to think that it is better to send troops to the other side of the world to fight and die than to have wind turbines "spoiling their view." I know that most electricity is produced by coal not oil, but if we were using wind turbines we could offset power generation too.
- Chandon, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1swordedge -
Actually, non-solar energy is subsidized pretty significantly, so solar adoption has actually been slowed from the optimal market rate by government interference. If we're going to complain about energy-market-warping subsidies, we need to remember the two big ones - fossil fuels and corn. -
Show 51 - 88 of 88 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 