Digg

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

An Ambitious Grand Plan: The U.S. solar-powered by 2050

sciam.com — By 2050 solar power could end U.S. dependence on foreign oil and slash greenhouse gas emissions. Read on!

Bury

MrBabyMan 185 days ago, made popular 184 days ago

1430 diggs
digg it

260 Comments
Who Dugg It?
Blog It
Email It

queenmoweeny, on 02/18/2008, -2/+28No one could be happier about this than me!!! I just wish it was sooner!
- dpcdomino, on 02/18/2008, -4/+11Sooner is right. With the speed technology is developing, you figure they would not need 50 years. Look at the development of cars, TVs, music delivery systems, internet, and other technologies and how they have devloped over 50 years.
  
  Energy technology is seriously behind the eight ball and I think there are very dubious reasons why.
  - D3koy, on 02/18/2008, -0/+6It's 42 years from now....42..hmm...
  - biotch, on 02/18/2008, -6/+17it could of been 8 less if Bush wasnt elected.
    - theOster, on 02/19/2008, -1/+3yes it could of...
    - octophobic, on 02/19/2008, -1/+1Who needs to be elected anymore? Just get close and sue your way in.
    - Loonatickle, on 02/19/2008, -0/+1Kind of like getting close and paying off the superdelegates to switch their votes.
  - mos6507, on 02/19/2008, -0/+1Ah, but innovation != energy.
- bdbr, on 02/18/2008, -1/+3What are you happy about? This is just a concept. It doesn't appear to have even been through extensive peer review.
  - michaelb1, on 02/19/2008, -0/+3I'm happy that it's even being considered. The other day I got a quote on a solar array for my house. It would cost me $50k.
    I think that's riduculous. Solar chips are just silicon chips which we already know how to mass produce very efficiently.
    The rest is just wires, diodes and an inverter. Throw some batteries in for true off-grid living.
    This should cost around $20k in my opinion.
    - MacEnvy, on 02/19/2008, -0/+1You may have to adapt your consumptions habits if you want to go solar at your home right now. Thin-film panels are on their way, and they should be much cheaper. But if you want it right now you may have to start using less electricity. I don't know how big your house is, but $50,000 sounds like a lot from the different installations I've read about.
      - michaelb1, on 02/19/2008, -0/+1well, I spec'd it out for 100% of my electricity use. Most people only go for 50% becuase it's more economical.
        I want the doomsday scenario so that if things really go bad and we lose public utilities Iwill still have some juice.
      - Godlike, on 02/19/2008, -0/+4Hope you have land mines, barbed wire, automatic weapons and the heart to kill because if everything goes to pot your place would become very popular.
    - PhantomZmoove, on 02/20/2008, -0/+1You mean you guys don't already have that stuff?
      
      Oh...me either. :)
- sockpuppets, on 02/18/2008, -3/+2Mr Burns, is that you?
- biotch, on 02/18/2008, -2/+5When yr a scientologist and you see solar panels being erected, you know no one else can be more appreciative about it .... because ..... you know.
  - turpenine, on 02/18/2008, -2/+1because you get to look at those big black erections all day?
- Dunge, on 02/18/2008, -4/+3Why? You are the CEO of that solar panel company?
- DrDabbles, on 02/18/2008, -0/+1Investors in solar companies, and solar company employees could be happier than you. But that's just a guess.
- caponumen, on 02/19/2008, -0/+1I am pro solar and designed my first PV residential solar system in 1978, I have been waiting ever since for all the
  various components to catch up and allow such a reliable and practical system to be realized.
  That day has still not dawned.........
  - tommes667, on 02/26/2008, -0/+1You should buy that stuff in Europe ;-)
- Fordi, on 02/19/2008, -2/+1Eh. I agree with moving away from coal and oil, but dismissing nuclear is stupid - if we're talking about light water 'dirty' reactors, yeah, but pebble bed and thorium are good options we SHOULD be looking into.
dotlizard, on 02/18/2008, -1/+37well this would be wonderful, even if i'll be 90 at the time. i'll still appreciate it :)
- tehbored, on 02/18/2008, -2/+26Don't worry, that'll be young in 2050.
  - Fordi, on 02/19/2008, -3/+4I certainly hope not; the overpopulation would be horrendous - and we'd still have these moronic baby boomers to deal with.
- Antwan718, on 02/18/2008, -3/+2And it will only cost half of the funds over 40 years that it would take to use enough money to fund HALF of the Iraq "war"
  - RustyJ, on 02/19/2008, -0/+0So it's a quarter of the "'war'" in Iraq?
    um...
karenben, on 02/18/2008, -3/+13It would be great if this happens.
- greenlight2001, on 02/18/2008, -6/+19"But $420 billion in subsidies from 2011 to 2050 would be required to fund the infrastructure and make it cost-competitive."
  
  Seeing how that's about how much we're spending in Iraq to date, it could have already happened.
  - MacEnvy, on 02/18/2008, -3/+6Several times over. And it makes me very, very sad to think we've squandered our nation's bounty on destructive forces rather than technological and societal progress.
    - offspring06, on 02/19/2008, -1/+6Blame GWB and the war machine. War is big money for some.
      - michaelb1, on 02/19/2008, -1/+1Your on to something. Someone should figure out how to make solar powered tanks and bombs. Then we will see some real R&D go into solar.
      - RP4408, on 02/19/2008, -2/+1Its called HAARP but it won't be powering our homes just pacifying our minds without chemicals, like sodium fluoride in our water.
- bearsandbulls, on 02/19/2008, -0/+2Yes it would. But we are going to need more renewable than that. Even with the solar plan we only end up cutting our gas consumption in half. Kind of scary because of the global expansion happening and looking 42 years into the future that half may be really unaffordable.
- dn11, on 02/19/2008, -0/+3I think solar will ultimately be one of the primary energy sources of the future - but I'm not sure that I see these centralized plants sprawling out across the desert as the form it will take. Future solar technology will be more easily integrated into surfaces such as roofing - even paint. As the cost continues to go down - and I believe it will hit a point where it begins to decrease exponentially just like the CPU and electronics industry - individuals and businesses will be further encouraged to incorporate solar energy into their homes and buildings to generate all or most of their own energy. Even today you can refinance your home, use the loan to add solar, and ultimately save - in many cases the increased cost on your mortgage will be less than your monthly energy bills were.
karenben, on 02/18/2008, -14/+2It would be great if this happens.
- Richandler, on 02/19/2008, -0/+2All these solar panels will exist and you'll still have to pay your electric bill because the money was given to the power companies and not you.
crazybugger, on 02/18/2008, -10/+66I hope US does not invade the sun, to have more light.
- wonderchemist, on 02/18/2008, -3/+32If they do, they better make sure they do it at night.
- AndreasTh, on 02/18/2008, -4/+33That would be impossible; the sun revolves around the earth too fast.
  - Livewire, on 02/18/2008, -1/+14you idiot, it sets in the ocean. they just need to have tubes to suck out the light at night.
  - alittleroy101, on 02/18/2008, -3/+1Damn you college boy.
  - RustyJ, on 02/19/2008, -2/+0Did you mean the earth revolves around 'merica too fast?
- ShogunWarPig, on 02/19/2008, -0/+2Shortest occupation EVER!
- dn11, on 02/19/2008, -1/+4"The federal government would have to invest more than $400 billion over the next 40 years to complete the 2050 plan"... wow just think - instead of invading, destroying, rebuilding and occupying a country that was no threat to us we could have rebuilt our entire energy economy to one that is clean, sustainable and self sufficient, created a new industry providing massive numbers of new jobs to Americans and done it all for a lot less money...
- KingGorilla, on 02/19/2008, -0/+2i construct this dyson sphere in honor of the USA!
  - MeMongo, on 02/19/2008, -0/+1Nice TNG reference!
    - KingGorilla, on 02/19/2008, -0/+1?
BigBallistix, on 02/18/2008, -15/+64In Obamas blueprint for change ( http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/ObamaBlueprintForCh ... ) he talks about this. He's promised $140b over 10 years, so that's more than appropriate. The pdf also mentions that the US's oil habits cost their economy $500b in 2006 alone. I'd try to build it a little quicker if I were you.

So for all those who say the government would never act on this article, think again. Just vote Obama!
- NSResponder, on 02/18/2008, -10/+7Great, so we can let the same people who gave us Amtrak and the Post Office try to solve the energy problem?
  
  No, thanks. Just quit subsidizing or penalizing any energy source, and the market will get us what we need.
  
  -jcr
  - MacEnvy, on 02/18/2008, -4/+13The market doesn't deal well with externalities, like pollution. I thought we all went over this in ECON 101? Apparently libertarians forget about such simple concepts the moment they decide to base their entire personal philosophy on "the market is always right".
    
    Sometimes, the free market ***** things up even worse than the government. It isn't god, you know.
    - bphicke, on 02/18/2008, -4/+7Its a known fact that government intervention solves all problems. /sarcasm
    - cersad, on 02/19/2008, -2/+7Thank you, MacEnvy, for pointing out the obvious that people tend to doublethink away.
    - bowe, on 02/19/2008, -2/+2MacEnvy, since you seem to know your stuff, what do Economists often suggest to deal with the issues of externalities? Would you A) Make power a public service, like public water systems B)Set a price floor or price ceiling or C) none of the above.
      - MacEnvy, on 02/19/2008, -1/+3I'm not an economist, but I am willing to oblige. From a (surprisingly well) written Wikipedia article:
        "Externalities can be resolved by agreement between the parties involved. The first, and most common type of agreement, is tacit agreement through the political process. Governments are elected to represent citizens and to strike political compromises between various interests. Normally governments pass laws and regulations to address pollution and other types of environmental harm. These laws and regulations can take the form of "command and control" regulation (such as setting standards, targets, or process requirements), or environmental pricing reform (such as ecotaxes or other pigovian taxes, tradable pollution permits or the creation of markets for ecological services.
        The second type of agreement is explicit agreement through bargaining. Ronald Coase argued that individuals could organize bargains so as to bring about an efficient outcome and eliminate externalities without government intervention. Some take this argument further, and make the political claim that government should restrict its role to facilitating bargaining among the affected groups or individuals and to enforcing any contracts that result. This result, often known as the Coase Theorem, requires that:
        -Property rights are well defined
        -People act rationally
        -Transaction costs are minimal
        If all three of these apply, individuals will bargain to solve the problem of externalities."
        
        Now, we all know that we won't ever be able to, en masse, collectively bargain with the big players in the energy industry. We know that won't happen with them being so close to the political process (and the parties in particular), and us being too large and disorganized. So we have to go with the first one - bargain via the government through legislation. That's what we're trying to do - pass laws to mandate a higher amount be spent to build up renewable energy by the government.
    - Draxius, on 02/19/2008, -0/+6You are right, we need government to help us out in things like pollution. That is why we have our court system and we can sue people etc. Pollution would have been solved long ago if we could sue companies that are putting ***** in the air. Instead we have government regulation that does nothing more than legitimize pollution as long as it is below the standard that the companies lobbied against and most likely influenced. Worst case, they get slapped on the wrist with a fine. Now if they were paying out huge settlements and also losing customers, that would do something. All of a sudden expensive alternatives would make business sense.
  - stoanhart, on 02/19/2008, -2/+3What's wrong with the post office? Whenever I order something from the states, I get it shipped USPS.
- l00s3r, on 02/18/2008, -1/+11Hey how about the government just gives everyone $20,000 or whatever it costs to convert a house to solar power. We'll be 100% solar this year!
  - MeMongo, on 02/19/2008, -0/+2Because most of the retards in this country would spend it on iPods, 21" spinner rims for their Corolla, a new "grill" on their teeth, and a lifetime supply of fitted caps with "NY" on them.
- DuffyDirect, on 02/19/2008, -6/+1"The page you are looking for doesn't seem to exist."
  
  wow, great solution obama.
- Draxius, on 02/19/2008, -1/+3That's great, too bad the government has never really ever solved anything. They aren't even designed to solve problems it is silly to expect them to. Only the people (markets) can solve this problem...
  
  Oh, and it sure is nice of you to support giving away taxpayers money to *gasp* big corporations.....or did you figure the money would go to poor people with no health care?
- moontime, on 02/19/2008, -0/+2Will he do this before or after he and Zbig go to war with Russia?
- pbfreak453, on 02/19/2008, -0/+3Kind of strange to think about, if we hadn't of spent all that money on invading Iraq, we could have the money stashed away right now.
  
  Bush/Satan 08
aritheman, on 02/18/2008, -1/+5This is a great Plan lets hope it will happen
tehbored, on 02/18/2008, -4/+64You call this ambitious? Make it 2035 and then we'll talk.
INDOAZZ, on 02/18/2008, -4/+3Here is the key or downfall which ever you choose.
"But $420 billion in subsidies from 2011 to 2050 would be required to fund the infrastructure and make it cost-competitive".
- saleem, on 02/18/2008, -0/+12Think of Return on Investment for your money and priceless savings for our troops' lives.
  Compare this to the cost of the Iraq War. Which one gives us cheaper energy independence???
  - bdbr, on 02/18/2008, -3/+5When did war ever have a good ROI?
    - irightthebook, on 02/18/2008, -1/+3Entering World War II to stop fascism wasn't too bad.
      - MacEnvy, on 02/18/2008, -0/+5While that's broadly true, the real return on investment from WWII came from the technology investments we made during the war. A war shouldn't be *required* to make such investment, but unfortunately it's one of the few things that can convince our idiot politicians to actually spend money on the right things for once.
      - irightthebook, on 02/20/2008, -0/+1Absolutely agreed. And it infuriates me like no other when people make the argument that war is good, even necessary, for technological advance, as if war is the only "common cause" we can have.
  - airburst, on 02/19/2008, -0/+3Why do we have to choose one? Can't we choose neither and keep our money to spend as we see fit?
- trump48257, on 02/18/2008, -0/+11Yea and we've spent $315 billion (probably more now) just on Iraq in the past FIVE YEARS. That doesn't seem like such a big number now does it?
  - offspring06, on 02/19/2008, -0/+3Yeah but war is more important than funding a nations infrastructure. /sarcasm
    - gdehms, on 02/19/2008, -1/+0Oh man I was about to flame you so bad.. but luckily I saw that clever hypertext tag at the end of your comment so i didn't have to.
- arw371, on 02/18/2008, -1/+7do you know how much oil and nuclear get in subsidies?
  
  dont bring up that tired subsidy arguement
  - kindpastor, on 02/20/2008, -0/+1Only enough to offset what they lose through regulation.
    
    Subsidies create problems.
- spyderfreek2k, on 02/19/2008, -0/+1Factor in inflation, and do a cost benefit analysis. then check back with me,
  
  In the end, an investment is almost our social responsibility, if Exxon-Mobil would enter the solar market strong, they could gain a huge competitive advantage. The first mover strategy could be huge for them. Besides, if we get all our power from solar or Hydrogen, its still going to be expensive for fuel because people are willing to pay, so unless a price ceiling is in place, economically,fuel (whether it be fossil or alternative) will remain at an equilibrium price.
  
  And thats your Econ 101 tid bit for the day.
  - TheEgghead, on 02/19/2008, -2/+1Too bad you didn't show up for Econ 201. Your assumption only holds true if the supply is inelastic. However, the whole point of solar and (to a lesser extent) hydrogen fuel is that the supply is much more widely available and more importantly, not decreasing. You're correct that energy will always have some theoretical equilibrium price, but that price will definitely not remain constant. For easy proof of this, simply look at a chart of energy prices over the past say 500 years. It's clearly true that petroleum is a cheaper energy source than say, wood.
- ajaytr, on 02/19/2008, -1/+5Are you kidding me? Did anyone see Bush's proposal for next year's defense budget?? 515B in one year. 420B over 40 years is all we need? Pfffttt...
- dn11, on 02/19/2008, -1/+3yeah, too bad we it is so ludicrous to propose subsidizing energy independence and new American industry - which will have a direct positive influence on national security and the economy, instead of totally unnecessary wars that will eventually cost trillions - destroying our economy and putting us more at risk in the world.
Singulariter, on 02/18/2008, -1/+29425 Billion? That's all? Psssshaw...that's not even one war worth of funding
Accolade1, on 02/18/2008, -4/+5I'll believe it when I see it. Until then, I'll fry an egg with my sunshine.
Bologner, on 02/18/2008, -2/+15My children and grandchildren might have a better America after all.
- MeMongo, on 02/19/2008, -0/+4America would be better off if people stopped having so many children.
cambob76, on 02/18/2008, -9/+47That's pretty optimistic to assume the U.S. will still exist in 2050.
- hummer13, on 02/19/2008, -0/+3You're right that is 38 years after the world would have ended...
  /s
- KingGorilla, on 02/19/2008, -0/+4The U.S. will exist. It'll just be the United States of China
- zacharytelschow, on 02/20/2008, -1/+1Its pretty ignorant to imply it won't.
- franl, on 02/20/2008, -0/+1Nah. The Singularity won't happen that soon. Of course, when it does happen, there won't be any countries.
nathanaver, on 02/18/2008, -7/+32050? By then we could have fusion power. Let's try to be a bit more optimistic guys.
tcasey22, on 02/18/2008, -1/+6This is what is known as smart investment, and would be one of only the few gifts we would give to our grandchildren if we did indeed take this necessary step.
- MacEnvy, on 02/18/2008, -0/+4Screw the grandchildren, I hope to be alive to take advantage of it myself! But yeah, it's probably the best possible legacy we could leave behind for future generations.
lucutus, on 02/18/2008, -0/+3This is a great movement and plan. Lets all hope it is seen through! I'm running some solar power in my home but not nearly 50% just some lighting.
D3koy, on 02/18/2008, -3/+9We could do this by 2025....Get your asses in gear engineers and politicians! We can convert South Dakota to "New Solar Cell"...Think how much cooler Mt Rushmore would be if it were shiny and powered Manhattan!
- nighthawk8713, on 02/19/2008, -0/+5South Dakota isn't all that sunny. It lends itself much more to wind farm than solar farms.
- airburst, on 02/19/2008, -2/+1That sounds just like the government too! ***** up South Dakota for the benefit of New York. There are more votes there anyway right?
- Lynxpro, on 02/19/2008, -3/+2Neighboring North Dakota has an estimated 200-400 billion barrels of oil underneath it. The US currently uses 7 billion annual. Who the ***** needs the Middle East or Hugo Chavez with those oil reserves? That's also not counting the nearly 200 billion barrels of oil in neighboring Alberta [Canada] or the 60+billion under the [British] Falkland Islands. Nationalize the North Dakota reserves and then use the proceeds to pay for the development of solar and other alternatives energies.
  - cersad, on 02/19/2008, -1/+2So how much does it cost to get these alleged barrels of oil out of the ground? Just wondering if you knew.
  - SQLserver, on 02/19/2008, -2/+5Why the hell do people say stuff like this?
    I mean, who BLOODY CARES if there is cheap oil anywhere?!
    Oil is the freaking past people, lets not pollute and destroy the environment anymore.
    Basically, you just said:
    "Hey guys! Look, now we can destroy the environment on the cheap!"
davdd, on 02/18/2008, -1/+19"$420 billion in subsidies from 2011 to 2050 would be required to fund the infrastructure and make it cost-competitive..." This will seem like chump change in 10 years when we are paying $500 per baller of oil.

Hello - our trade deficit is already over 9 trillion dollars (that's 9000 Billions) I'd say the federal governments should be providing incentives to morrow to get this to happen by 2015 and not 2050.

Come on guys rally this one up!
- biotch, on 02/18/2008, -1/+3seriously... apparently its no problem to spend over 500 billion on blowing people up in Iraq to secure our oil interests. But spending 420 billion in the same time frame on renewable power is out of the question eh?
  - MacEnvy, on 02/18/2008, -1/+2That's what happens when you put two oilmen in the White House, you know. What possible desire could they have to fix the energy crisis when they're making money off of it?
- RonJon715, on 02/19/2008, -0/+0Hello....actually, our annual trade deficit is around 700-800 billion. The Federal debt is around 9.1 trillion. Soooo, your around 8.4 "trillions" (lol) off. Better luck next time.
- Draxius, on 02/19/2008, -0/+1The trade deficit has pulled back abit lately too. That is what a weak currency does for you.
- davdd, on 02/19/2008, -0/+1ooops - yes I did mean to say National debt but I like your number better 700 billion annually still makes this investment seem small to me.
leontes, on 02/18/2008, -1/+5We really should be spending the money that has been allocated on the economic stimulus packages on a project like this.

That would result in true economic independence in reducing the need for foreign oil and coal plants for heating. Rather than supplying a tangential and fleeting 600 bucks to every person. Let's use the great wealth of united states to transform the countries economy, while pumping money into into the hands of the workers who would build the structure and into the coffers of the companies that would innovate for it. That is akin to the great works that America was able to build during the New Deal during FDR's time: the great turnpikes. Let's fix the economic downturns through revolutionary expenditure rather than the short shot in the arm that the economic stimulus provides.
- NSResponder, on 02/18/2008, -4/+4"We really should be spending the money that has been allocated on the economic stimulus packages on a project like this."
  
  Better still, we should let the taxpayers keep their money, and deregulate the energy market.
  
  -jcr
  - leontes, on 02/18/2008, -4/+1Private industry does not have a great track record when it comes to massive public works: look at the debacle that is Amtrack. I know the government has also created terrible systems rife with corruption, but I've never understood the old mantra of privatization when it's obvious that such measure have failed spectacularly in the past. I think a wise setup would be to try to corruption proof any new large public works project: increase rather than limit regulation in order to learn from past mistakes rather than repeat them.
    - NSResponder, on 02/18/2008, -2/+3"Great Northern Railway". Look it up.
      
      -jcr
    - Railz, on 02/19/2008, -4/+2Rockefeller oil. Talk about the ***** hole we're in now.
  - jackmaninov, on 02/19/2008, -1/+1How will deregulation decrease emissions? The only way to do this is to regulate, or simply do the project publicly.
Medisha, on 02/18/2008, -7/+4
And spending the money that has been used on economic stimulus on a project like this: true economic independence and stimulus, rather than supplying 600 bucks to every person: use the great wealth of united states to transform the countries economy, while pumping money into into the hands of the workers who would build it and the companies that would innovate it. That is akin to the great works that America was able to build during the New Deal during FDR's time: the great turnpikes. Let's fix the economic downturns through revolutionary expenditure rather than the short shot in the arm that the economic stimulus provides.
- leontes, on 02/18/2008, -1/+3Hi there: why did you copy and paste exactly what I posted in the comment above you? You didn't have time to paste the edits I made for clarity, though, did you?
AndrewDB, on 02/18/2008, -2/+4Great, I'll be almost 70 when this happens, wayyy too ***** late too enjoy it.
EvoPsy, on 02/18/2008, -3/+0I thought we already were.

/google
digitallysick, on 02/18/2008, -4/+3I just don't see it, the cost of solar panels really needs to come down. For instance, figure up how much voltage your computer uses, look at the price of solar panels and how long it will take before they pay for themselves. You will realize quick that its expensive, and your looking at 8 to 10 years before its finally "free" energy. I want this to happen but i just don't think we have the technology yet.
- z28com, on 02/19/2008, -1/+3We have the technology. Digg has had tons of stories about very efficient solar panels so far. These panels are not expensive to produce. It's the people making them are marking the profits way up due to greed. Making one of these isn't much different than manufacturing a motherboard. How much could it possible cost to mass produce these things by MULTIPLE MILLIONS? It's almost like a piece of plastic with some coating around it. It shouldn't be rocket science to make tons of these things.
  
  For what Bush has spent on the war, we could have taken that same money and invested in solar panels MULTIPLE TIMES.
- jackmaninov, on 02/19/2008, -0/+2This article was obviously written without reading too much into Nanosolar (search it on Digg). Nanosolar is a US company producing commercial-grade solar panels RIGHT NOW that cost $1 per watt of panel. Their next 18 months of production capacity are already prepurchased, mostly by German utilities (who are beating North America silly where solar capacity is concerned).
- videographer, on 02/19/2008, -0/+3>...your looking at 8 to 10 years before its finally "free" energy.<
  
  You kids gotta stop living in the second, or the moment, or the fiscal quarter. A 10-year payback on an investment like this is not a long time at all.
  
  I know. I've done it. Love my solar cells.
nullcodes, on 02/18/2008, -0/+8What about all the pollution making the solar panels? Nuclear is the cleanest and safest. With Remix & Return technology, the total environmental impact can be greatly reduced. Remix and Return is when the used fuel is returned mixed with the ore that the radioactive fuel came from and reburied back in the mine it came from. There's actually less energy in it (obviously).
- unpolloloco, on 02/18/2008, -0/+5what about all the pollution making the nuclear plants?
  - nullcodes, on 02/18/2008, -1/+5LOL.
    
    Proportions, dude.
    
    The pollution is a lot less.
    
    Also, where does the silicon for solar panels come from? (You need high quality without impurities etc.)
    
    http://www.siliconvalley.com/news/ci_7995454
    
    That's right, the Saudis. They sell sand too apparently.
  - tehbored, on 02/18/2008, -0/+1Some newer designs don't use silicon, such as Nanosolar's panels. Also, they don't have to be PV, they could be thermal, which don't need silicon either (unless you count the glass).
    - nullcodes, on 02/18/2008, -0/+1Hmm doesn't nanosolar use CIGS (Copper Indium Gallium Diselenide)? Though I don't have a problem with it, don't the self proclaimed "environmentalists" say we're running out of Indium any day now, and copper in 100 years (though I want to know where exactly the copper disappears off to as we "use it all up").
JFallon126, on 02/18/2008, -1/+10I think one of the biggest changes needed is people need to stop pretending nuclear energy is bad. It's come a long way since the 1960's. Solar power combined with (safe) nuclear power would cut if not eliminate oil dependancy, be cleaner and more importantly, very doable.
- tehbored, on 02/18/2008, -0/+3It's come a long way in some countries, but has made practically no progress in the U.S. Nuclear is a good way of generating power. Especially if you use different reactor types as opposed to just the traditional and comparatively unsafe uranium fuel rod ones.
apologeticus, on 02/18/2008, -10/+4It's amazing to me how many diggers just take this projection as gospel.

But if Obama wants to sink hundreds of billions into this, that's reason 5487 not to vote for him. The Constitution does not grant Congress the authority to spend my tax dollars on these types of things. (and yes, I know Bush spends trillions on things the Constitution doesn't authorize, either)
- hamobu, on 02/18/2008, -4/+7You sir have been brainwashed by the evil libertarian cult. Fear not, I can cure you. Repeat after me:
  1. Free market is not the solution to everything
  2. There is no such thing as the invisible hand
  3. Government that is big enough can actually save money for tax payers by providing services which free market cannot.
  - apologeticus, on 02/18/2008, -5/+3You sir have been brainwashed by the MSM and the Republican and Democrat parties into thinking that, as one famous neocon put it, "the Constitution is just a GD piece of paper." Some of us actually believe that our nation's leaders should actually honor the holy vow they take to protect and defend the Constitution instead of just giving it a wink and a nod from time to time.
    - hamobu, on 02/19/2008, -1/+1I like the constitution. I am not too crazy about the slavery part, but there are some good ideas in there.
    - SQLserver, on 02/19/2008, -2/+1European Socialism > Libertarian.
      Face it guys, Libertarian is simply impossible for America.
      Look how well Socialism works in countries in Europe, like Sweden.
mutagenesis, on 02/18/2008, -0/+10420 billion in subsidies... geez, we spend more in a year on the defense department, or at least around equal to that. 420 billion is 4 years in Iraq at the current expense.

I've seen worse uses of money, like, about everything the federal government funds.
- blueskydiver76, on 02/18/2008, -1/+2420 billion is like 6 months in iraq
bdbr, on 02/18/2008, -2/+4I don't know why a supposed scientific journal would propose a single-source solution.
- jackmaninov, on 02/19/2008, -0/+2The article mentions two solar methods.
  
  Also, are you concerned that the sun may not rise tomorrow?
- caketank, on 02/19/2008, -0/+1Scientific American isn't a journal, it's a pop science magazine.
RyanBlueThunder, on 02/18/2008, -4/+4"Foreign oil" has nothing to do with electricity.
In the US, oil is used primarily for one thing: transportation. Sure, there are emergency oil stocks at many power plants, but for the most part, our electricity is generated by (a) coal, (b) natural gas, (c) hydroelectric, and (d) nuclear.
You want to rid the demand for foreign oil? Create a hydrogen car. Use domestic coal (with clean-coal CO2 sequestration) and nuclear power to create hydrogen. Domestic and friendly oil and natural gas could meet our refining demands for plastics and other highly refined polymers.
- psufleish23, on 02/18/2008, -1/+2Finally somebody stated the obvious. I couldn't figure out why many of the comments said this would end our dependence on oil. Solar energy would do very little/next to nothing to change our dependence. As was stated above, oil is primarily used for transportation.
  - caketank, on 02/19/2008, -1/+1but if we had solar for our electricity, we could burn all that coal in our cars.
  - MacEnvy, on 02/19/2008, -0/+2I think the idea is to also switch to electric vehicles.
- Railz, on 02/19/2008, -0/+2Also, he is right on the Clean Coal. America has very large (as does almost every country) abundance of coal. You can clean it up to make it produce less soot then oil right now outputs. There was an article not long ago on Digg about the Air Force toying with the Coal fuel as a way to lower expenses.
- hockeyplayer66, on 02/19/2008, -0/+0Yes, but the total resource cost to remove coal is much greater than capturing sun. Thats why I go sit on the beach for vacation and don't go to Wyoming with a shovel.
wissler, on 02/18/2008, -4/+5This is lame. More nuclear power would be better than a massive waste of real-estate and materials.
- CJMac, on 02/18/2008, -1/+1Real-estate? Its the middle of the desert... Last I checked, people weren't rushing out to live there.
  - vortexgenerator, on 02/19/2008, -1/+3Have you been to Phoenix or Las Vegas?
    - KingGorilla, on 02/19/2008, -0/+2Do you know how much money and resources it takes to make that land livable???
selfobsessed, on 02/18/2008, -0/+3If energy prices keep on rising as they are I don't think it would be that difficult to fathom something like this happening much sooner than 2050.
elnerdo, on 02/18/2008, -2/+9"A new direct-current power transmission backbone would deliver solar electricity across the country."

Edison tried this in the early 20th century. Alternating current (with transformers!) works better. That's why we don't have a direct-current power transmission backbone.
- NSResponder, on 02/18/2008, -1/+3There are some systems in Europe that use DC in the megavolt range for long-distance power transmission. They use the high voltage power to turn a motor that provides AC at the distribution points.
  
  -jcr
- vortexgenerator, on 02/19/2008, -0/+1You're completely right!! I bet the author never thought of that...
- DeadPanDan, on 02/19/2008, -0/+1You should write to them and tell them of their error. They'll be grateful for your insight, I'm sure.
- jackmaninov, on 02/19/2008, -0/+2The article mentions studies and existing high voltage DC lines that are indeed working and more efficient than AC distribution.
  Technology has improved quite a bit over the past 100 years, believe it or not.
Evildudetx, on 02/18/2008, -2/+11Nice plan, but horribly unrealistic. We need options NOW, not in 40 years. Nuke plants make the most sense in the short term with a full move to solar in the long term. Our oil dependence could end very quickly if Shell would use their new technology and start getting the oil out of the oil shale deposits. Exploration and drilling in Alaska needs to be expanded and most importantly, the oil companies have to be allowed to build new refineries. I personally would also like to see all the BS special gas blends end as well. Then all gas everywhere would be the same and the refineries would not have to stop and make specific blends for California and everyone else.
- irightthebook, on 02/18/2008, -1/+2I was with you up until you got to exploration and drilling in Alaska. No, thanks.
- NSResponder, on 02/18/2008, -0/+2"Nice plan, but horribly unrealistic. We need options NOW, not in 40 years."
  
  The molten-salt system is doable right now.
  
  -jcr
  - jackmaninov, on 02/19/2008, -0/+2Plug-in hybrids are also coming out over the next year or two. Or get your current hybrid converted into a plug-in today.
- stack3r, on 02/18/2008, -0/+2Pretty sure it would happen quicker if someone allocated the money.
  But you know, war is more profitable.
  - elnerdo, on 02/19/2008, -0/+1You know? I see a lot of things that people try to boil down to money, and there's always something more than that. Take the many statistics you hear about world hunger, for example. You'll often hear something about "For just X dollars, world hunger could be solved." This really isn't true. It doesn't work like that. That assumes that because we have 6 billion dollars, food costs one dollar per person and we have 6 billion people, that we could solve world hunger. It doesn't take into account that there might not be 6 billion units of food in existence, and that the last 1 billion units of food will be harder to procure.
    
    Same thing applies for solar cells. It doesn't just come down to the money. Yeah, the money is a lot of it, but no amount of money can solve the problem instantly.
- staxofmax, on 02/19/2008, -0/+2Not to mention kill corn based ethanol production and move towards switchgrass.
- Lynxpro, on 02/19/2008, -0/+1Then support the rest of the nation having the same fuel blend mandates that California has in place. Then the entire nation would reduce its carbon emissions plus the costs would go down due to economies-of-scale.
zephyear, on 02/18/2008, -3/+3or you know, nuclear, which is way way more efficient. also the latest nuclear plant designs have minimized if not eliminated nuclear waste output. it's clean, it's far more efficient.

hell by 2050 we might even have fusion power.
- tehbored, on 02/18/2008, -0/+1Actually new solar designs are more efficient than nuclear, but nuclear is still a very important technology and we don't use it nearly as much as we should.
- jackmaninov, on 02/19/2008, -0/+1Nuclear plants take many, many years to build and bring into operation. Yes, the timeline for this article is 50 years, but many of the benefits that it talks about could begin to be phased in immediately if funding were allocated now. Deployment times for wind and solar installation can be measured in months.
  
  Nuclear plants are also VERY capital intensive when compared to solar or wind. I haven't seen any specific numbers, but I would imagine that a plan to convert the american energy system over to 100% nuclear in the next 40 years would cost much more than 500 billion
- skiblur, on 02/19/2008, -1/+1Not to mention the world's supply of enriched uranium will be depleted shortly after oil anyway.
  - elnerdo, on 02/19/2008, -0/+1Not with reprocessing.
smex, on 02/18/2008, -4/+3The picture for the article says it all.. so much smog could exist by 2050 that solar cells won't work too good.
kjizzle, on 02/18/2008, -6/+2i just lol'd.
- z28com, on 02/19/2008, -0/+1If you want to really LOL, then look at lots of the videos on www.*****.com
grimfandango, on 02/18/2008, -4/+2as if
NSResponder, on 02/18/2008, -1/+4The article says:

"For energy storage, the pipes run into a large, insulated tank filled with molten salt, which retains heat efficiently. Heat is extracted at night, creating steam. The molten salt does slowly cool, however, so the energy stored must be tapped within a day."

As my friend Russell explained to me a while back, this problem is trivially solved by increasing the amount of salt you're using. Make the storage tank big enough that it takes a week to heat up to working temperature, and you've also made it big enough that it takes a week to cool down. At that point, you have no more problem with the delta between the time of energy collection and the time of use.

Also, make the tank big enough, and you don't even have to insulate it, except for safety. The square-cube law will suffice.

-jcr
hamobu, on 02/18/2008, -8/+3We need nuckewlar energy. Nukewlar energy works NOW. Nukewlar energy is clean. Nukewlar energy is millions of times more potent than chemical energy. We have enough nukewlar fuel for thousands of years.
- ZekeSulastin, on 02/18/2008, -0/+5Fail troll fails epically.
  Sad thing is, nuclear energy now is a great option.
  - hamobu, on 02/18/2008, -5/+1I agree with you. Laura, Twins, Condi and I all support nukewlar energy
    
    GW
SilverBlade2k, on 02/18/2008, -0/+3Sure, good plan, we just need a U.S congress that isn't on Exxon's payroll, that's all
velichk, on 02/18/2008, -2/+1
In Obamas blueprint for change ( http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/ObamaBlueprintForCh ... ) he talks about this. He's promised $140b over 10 years, so that's more than appropriate. The pdf also mentions that the US's oil habits cost their economy $500b in 2006 alone. I'd try to build it a little quicker if I were you.
So for all those who say the government would never act on this article, think again. Just vote Obama!
- wacki, on 02/19/2008, -0/+2It's nice to see that Obama cares about the environment but a lot of his plans are against the recommendations of leading scientists. Domestically grown ethanol, which Obama is pushing hard, is extremely bad for the environment (see the two most recent Science/Nature peer review papers) and many Princeton, Berkeley and Harvard scientists have called it all but a scam. Robert Rapier considers it "the great boondoggle". John McCain said this publicly when he ran against Bush and lost thanks to Iowa corn country. Obama's plan will probably work due to sheer mass and brute force, but there will be an enormous amount of waste.
nullcodes, on 02/18/2008, -1/+4Daddy, where does the silicon for solar panels come from?

http://www.siliconvalley.com/news/ci_7995454

Saudi Arabia, son.
- bubba9999, on 02/19/2008, -0/+1Are you saying that oil could be as cheap as dirt? (er, sand?)
- Cyberen, on 02/19/2008, -0/+1you need sand to make glass.
  Drink out of styrofoam cups or shut the ***** up.
bah7t4, on 02/18/2008, -3/+3I think this article severely underestimates the price for that system. I'd venture it would be into the trillions. A new backbone for HVDC? That's easily half a tril there in 2008 dollars; the article doesn't really address inflation rates as this thing is built. Add R&D costs, raw materials, manual labor to build this and this project is really underestimated. Now that I've dogged on this article I think nuclear power is the way to be. Use nuclear power to fuel electrolysis and get a hydrogen transportation system please!
- jackmaninov, on 02/19/2008, -0/+1Yes, the cost would be higher. The article is talking about the subsidies required to make their proposal competitive. Private capital would still be needed to build all this stuff. Free market rah rah and all that.
unpolloloco, on 02/18/2008, -0/+3Assuming $1/W, (http://www.digitimes.com/bits_chips/a20070913PD217 ... the full American electricity consumption can be supplied via solar in 2010 (with $420 billion). (US power consumption is approx 420 billion watts - source:google). Why the need to pay 420 billion in subsidies for 40 years?
- jackmaninov, on 02/19/2008, -0/+2Manufacturing capacity isn't there to build 420 billion watts of solar cells yet. Nor distribution capacity.
  The article goes into detail as to what the subsidies do at around the 5th page.
Rippleeffect, on 02/18/2008, -1/+4Problem might also be the repair costs from the monsoon storms in the southwest. Not sure how well those would stand up to hail.
Ibox, on 02/18/2008, -3/+2Dream on hippies... solar power is too inefficient. and to put an energy source in one area of the country to service the entire country?
- Rippleeffect, on 02/18/2008, -1/+3That's stage one. Did you read the article?
giena, on 02/18/2008, -0/+1
I just don't see it, the cost of solar panels really needs to come down. For instance, figure up how much voltage your computer uses, look at the price of solar panels and how long it will take before they pay for themselves. You will realize quick that its expensive, and your looking at 8 to 10 years before its finally "free" energy. I want this to happen but i just don't think we have the technology yet.
- rockefeller2, on 02/18/2008, -0/+1My computer uses 110 volts, so does my iron and coffee maker. So I guess that makes 330 volts. So how many solar panels do I need? They're all rated in KW.
  //end sarcasm
  - elnerdo, on 02/19/2008, -0/+1I almost chastised you, but then I realized that you were being sarcastic.
bphicke, on 02/18/2008, -1/+2You can already get solar power for your homes and businesses now. Many power companies will even tap them into their grid so they can use whatever power you don't and credit you for energy you give. The problem is people don't want to pay for it. Why should I pay for something you don't want to.
mattbeetee, on 02/18/2008, -0/+1While this is wonderful speculation, what really needs to happen is to see some, if any, form of actual progress towards achieving numbers like these. Anyone can come out and say "yes, we believe its possible for 50% of the UK to be reliant on wind power by 2050" but it means ***** all until we see it in operation. It's like saying I could have the body of a model by the end of the year, and then going off and sitting on the sofa watching TV and drinking lard.
shaherazad, on 02/19/2008, -0/+3I can't believe this guy thinks he can predict 40 years in the future.
Guess what dude: you have no idea where we'll be by 2050.
Show 51 - 87 of 87 discussions
Login or register to add a comment

Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.

An Ambitious Grand Plan: The U.S. solar-powered by 2050

Login or register to add a comment