What is Digg?235 Comments
- trendygamer, on 10/21/2007, -9/+62How is a piece of crap dial up ISP going to power California homes?
- WiseWeasel, on 10/21/2007, -6/+51Wow, this is huge! Completely distributed and infinitely redundant power generation is nothing short of a revolution. As the cost of solar panels drop to dollars per square foot (currently becoming a reality with thin-film solar cells and printed cell technologies), it completely makes sense to build them into building materials such as roofing components. If this can be pulled off, then this will have profound repercussions in energy usage, allowing us to drastically reduce our impact on the environment. I can't imagine the energy industry would be too happy with such a development, however.
- krnldmp, on 10/22/2007, -3/+42By 2020 if a home doesn't generate all the energy it uses you wont be able to afford to live in it anyway.
- shibz, on 10/22/2007, -18/+45or they could just build a few nuclear power plants...
- theblooms, on 10/22/2007, -6/+26And you think real estate in CA is unaffordable NOW?
- krnldmp, on 10/21/2007, -2/+22Let's just make sure California legislators don't do the same thing with this as they did with plug-in electric cars.
- LimeParrot, on 10/22/2007, -7/+26Man... When I heard Arnie terminated the polls and became the Californian governor, I couldn't stop laughing. But as it turned out, he really cares about the environment and has led California to being the forefront of fighting global warming. Seriously, kudos man... kudos...
- CraigJ, on 10/23/2007, -7/+25If this stuff is built into the home from the beginning, and the appliances and lighting systems are chosen with this in mind, this is doable today, for not much additional cost. A lot of this stuff cost a few extra bucks during new construction, such as waste water heat capture, 12 volt DC wiring, installation of large hot and cold water storage. This kind of stuff is a very expensive to retro-fit into an existing structure. I know this, because I'm in the process of doing some of this to my house now.
While I'm generally opposed to government regulation, I do think this is a good idea. - magnusdopus, on 10/20/2007, -4/+19This only guarantees that builders will continue to build McMansions and not affordable housing. The California middle-class is being squeezed by undue regulation. How about some increased tax credits for solar panel installation instead?
- theblooms, on 10/20/2007, -2/+17France doesn't seem to be having any issues.
- jonnyfive, on 10/21/2007, -1/+16Didn't they so something VERY similar with Electric Cars... What happened to them?
- avengingturnip, on 10/21/2007, -10/+24If it makes economic sense, it will happen without government regulation.
- cramtod, on 10/22/2007, -4/+17What free market?
1) The externalities of using coal/oil/gas for electricity generation are not built into the equation.
2) The gov still has tax incentives for some types of energy generation/exploration. - argoff, on 10/23/2007, -4/+16INFINITE! Infinite I tell you. I say infinite is the number of "good deeds" you can do when you point a gun to someone elses face and make them do it. Seriously, isn't there enough of an incentive to have an energy efficient home. Since when does the government know how to manage resources and allocations of capital better than everybody else? Even if they had a good track record (which they don't, it's actually awful), but even if they had a good track record. Is this really what we want? There are countries all over the planet that claim to be able to better run our lives than we do, but I thought this country was about freedom and liberty.
- krnldmp, on 10/21/2007, -8/+20I'd rather be in control of my own power. Besides, if somebody bombs me, you still got yours.
- Murdats, on 10/22/2007, -3/+14thats what I was thinking.
isnt it much more efficient to mass produce power then having lots and lots of tiny power production units all over the pace? - SouthsideIrish, on 10/21/2007, -2/+13We do not live in a free market, especially when it comes to energy companies. They are heavily controlled by the government, in fact, by every government from the Feds down to local government.
- brianbennett, on 10/23/2007, -3/+12Great, make it even harder to buy a house in California. The thought behind this is noble and all, but this is another serious encroachment on property rights.
- inactive, on 10/21/2007, -1/+10Not if I was stealing your energy.
- SouthsideIrish, on 10/22/2007, -2/+10Two very regulate industries! I worked for a major electronics company that could have given us the cellphone as much as 10 or 20 years earlier if it wasn't for government regulation. The power company is controlled by the state, and has in hands in the pocket of the state with all of those nice campaign donations. Cheers for the free market.
- Smight, on 10/21/2007, -6/+14So in economics 101 they told you capitalism is a failure? Was this class mandatory before you got in the soup line comrade?
With this kind of government regulation there is little incentive to improve the technology. Solar and geothermal are so expensive right now that the government will have to subsidize the industry such that it will be more profitable to make make the subsidized technology then it would be to spend the money for R&D which may only marginally improve the technology and may not qualify for subsidies if it is radically different from current systems. Look at how effective not allowing a free market and subsidizing corporations to provide mandatory services has been for internet peeds in America and Australia. http://digg.com/tech_news/Average_broadband_speed_ ... - avengingturnip, on 10/21/2007, -3/+10You are defining a failure of the free market as something not happening that you think should. Sorry, I have no reason to believe that you are as smart as you think you are and that you should be making my economic choices for me.
- CraigJ, on 10/20/2007, -6/+13I see what you did there.
- dabears1218, on 10/20/2007, -0/+7Actually, pipes do freeze quite often here. I live in Southern California, and our pipes did in fact freeze this January. Wasn't fun.
- pintomp3, on 10/21/2007, -1/+8it's easy to have such vision when you come from the future.
- pintomp3, on 10/22/2007, -7/+14a lot of things happen by force of regulation. the automobile fought tooth and nail against requiring seat belts. corporations often fight anything that that effects the short term bottom line.
- graystar, on 10/20/2007, -0/+7Why is it that the tragedy of the commons does not apply to the government too?
- eviltuxking, on 10/21/2007, -2/+9You mean, 2021? That's fourteen years away.
- pkonink, on 10/21/2007, -3/+10Given the energy you lose transporting it on wires over distances, energy produced on-site is MUCH more efficient. A great deal of energy is lost the farther you run it.
- J4k3, on 10/23/2007, -4/+10About damn time, if you ask me. Great job, Governator!
- bradcrc, on 10/20/2007, -3/+9the kind of thing that should be happening. Necessity is the mother of invention, and as things like this become commonplace, implementation experience and demand will quickly spur advances toward more efficient and cheap technology.
too bad it won't actually pass cause of influence by those who benefit from energy consumption and waste. - FranTaylor, on 10/23/2007, -7/+13You California folks are wasting the kilowatts of energy that bounce off your roofs every day. Put up solar cells! We New Englanders have a bigger challenge, but we are a lot more motivated. You don't have to pay $400/month to keep your pipes from freezing.
- theblooms, on 10/22/2007, -1/+7And yet, I don't see ANYWHERE on their site where they list any FM or Miami-Dade approvals. Which means that if you put them on your roof, your homeowners insurance will be outrageous because they haven't been proven to be able to withstand any hail or wind pressures whatsoever. And that pretty much means they are against code in most areas. Show me the FM or M-D approvals, and I will stand corrected.
- inactive, on 10/20/2007, -1/+7Look up Solar Decathlon. It isn't as expensive or far-fetched as it sounds.
- jake8689, on 10/20/2007, -2/+8the did something like this with cars, watch "who killed the electric car" i bet the same thing will happen
- PopcornDave, on 10/20/2007, -0/+6Those are starter homes in the Bay Area.
- PopcornDave, on 10/22/2007, -3/+9Vault is right to a degree. It's going to push the prices of homes built before 2020 even higher. And the people that don't want "that newfangled house" are going to have even worse bidding wars for the "old" houses.
- akkuma, on 10/20/2007, -0/+6Having done research on nuclear energy there are more options than bury and pray such as a closed cycle, integral fast reactors, subcritical reactors known as accelerator-driven system.
I'm far more comfortable with burying waste than what is spewed out from most power plants. Straight from my research:
The NEI have numerous articles stating how safe the transportation of the waste is with things like, “. . . since 1964 . . . No nuclear fuel container has ever leaked or cracked in any way.” They also state that when ran through the following tests a flatbed tractor-trailer ran into a 700-ton concrete wall banked with 1,700 tons of dirt at 80 miles per hour, a tractor-trailer broadsided by a rocket-assisted 120-ton train locomotive traveling 80 miles per hour, and a container dropped 2,000 feet onto soil as hard as concrete, traveling 235 miles an hour at impact that in all those cases, the containers survived intact. Post-crash assessments demonstrated that the containers would not have released their contents - WiseWeasel, on 10/23/2007, -0/+6That would be federal regulation. States like California would continue to take initiatives like this, as is their constitutional prerogative. Since there is easy mobility between states, people can vote with their feet if they don't like the direction their state is headed. State politics seem to be much more responsive to voter demands, though, so that shouldn't be necessary.
- 3adkied, on 10/22/2007, -0/+6The inventor of the airbag took it to automobile companies, not the government. When they first tried selling them as options in the 70's, they had little success. Things went better when they tried again in the 80's, and eventually the government made them mandatory. As with many safety items in the auto industry, one of the biggest pushers isn't the manufacturer or the government, but the insurance companies. Insurance companies have actually been very good historically about turning something like safety, which isn't inherently an economic issue, and putting a dollar amount on it to cause real change without relying on outright government regulation.
- theblooms, on 10/22/2007, -2/+7"it completely makes sense to build them into building materials such as roofing components."
Yes, it would. However, to my knowledge, none of the major roofing manufactures are even contemplating it yet. I work for a major independent testing lab for structure waterproofing manufactures (mostly roofing), and I have not even HEARD of anybody seriously considering it, nor even having mock ups. Embedding solar cells into EPDM, TPO or PVC roofing material would be insanely hard to do while still retaining Factory Mutual and Miami-Dade approvals. The engineering behind such a project would be INSANE, and I just don't see how it can be done in only 12 years.
That said, if we ever DO start seeing some samples, that ***** is going home with me after the lab tests are over! - rocket777, on 10/21/2007, -0/+5You think government can solve all our problems don't you. Just think FEMA! That was not an exception, that was the rule. Oh yeah, and they do it through the barrel of a gun, like in Iraq.
I don't know who is worse, people that think Jesus is coming back to solve all our problems or people who think the government can. - theblooms, on 10/22/2007, -6/+11Have you never held a job in the real world where the invisible hand DOES work, and it works well? If someone falls down on the job, there is someone else right there to fill the need. To quote the movie 'Robots', "See a need, fill a need!"
- Blueee, on 10/21/2007, -0/+5Mainframe power causes a reduction in efficiency of roughly 30%
It takes energy to move matter and electricity is made up of energy. They may have the mass of 1/2000th of one atomic mass unit, but it still takes energy.
Some of the electrons also become radicals and travel into the world. - avengingturnip, on 10/21/2007, -2/+7Is that what you are doing? Maybe you can turn off your computer and go out doors. You will use less electricity.
- pintomp3, on 10/23/2007, -3/+8there is a person who's ancestors collaborated and funded the nazis in the white house. btw, austrian isn't german.
- j0keR, on 10/23/2007, -1/+6I don't know where you get your economic theory from, but it's entirely wrong. Third world countries are in fact the most regulated. They redistribute more wealth than first world countries-- to the dictator. There is no proof that socialism works. Every problem it claims to solve was already on the way out the door when politicians jumped in front of the parade and claimed to be the hero who got rid of boogie man x. Laws are just words on paper. No amount of writing words on paper is going to change human nature. That's why communism always fails.
- bratpack8, on 10/21/2007, -0/+5Very good points 3adkied, insurance companies actually do bring safety to the market because it helps their profits, and helps them lower costs. It's a perfect example of why airlines should be in charge of their own security instead of the awful TSA. Would anyone fly and airline they didn't think was safe? Or who may have dangerous passengers on it? Or whose planes were flown into buildings?
- inactive, on 10/23/2007, -5/+10Energy use in California will decrease because only the rich will be able to afford a house.
- InfiniteNothing, on 10/23/2007, -0/+5We generally don't hold people responsible for the mistakes of their ancestors
-
Show 51 - 100 of 226 discussions
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is