What is Digg?117 Comments
- inactive, on 06/18/2008, -2/+45if people start putting just a solar assist on their hot water it can be a lot more than that a whole lot sooner...hot water is normally 20% of your power bill and much more with a large family...
- davidryal, on 06/18/2008, -1/+37lol digg picked up the writer's picture instead of the post's picture. high school yearbook ftw!
- scoreboard27, on 06/18/2008, -3/+28#1 threat to America: clouds
- lateralus, on 06/18/2008, -0/+19Most Likely To Win A Staring Contest
- ankeshk, on 06/18/2008, -1/+19The chance of any prediction / projection that goes beyond 10 years to come true is very very low. I doubt that it'll take 17 more years for the solar panels to hit their tipping point. I would think that 2015 is the year more likely for solar panels to power 10% of US.
- inactive, on 06/18/2008, -2/+17Solar power should power at least 30% of the U.S. by 2015. Why wait for it. Save your money up now instead of paying to poison yourself with coal fired plants.
- everetts, on 06/18/2008, -1/+13Agreed. Solar hot water reaches payoff MUCH quicker than solar power. Not that we shouldn't be doing both, but if you had to choose which to invest in...
- SwiftSlayer, on 06/18/2008, -0/+12I plan to utilize solar energy if its reasonably priced when I get a house.
- inactive, on 06/18/2008, -1/+12the coming of a new era
- misfit410, on 06/18/2008, -1/+12Nuclear energy could cover 100% of it, so let's do it.
- SkippyDoorknob, on 06/18/2008, -0/+9Her eyes have been replaced by solar cells, she's just trying to recharge.
- EvansHall, on 06/18/2008, -1/+8Wow, I'm surprised that solar provides even 0.1% now.
- dgendreau, on 06/18/2008, -1/+8For those not familiar with solar hot water heaters, see the following:
http://www.popularmechanics.com/home_journal/home_ ... - mohaltron, on 06/18/2008, -0/+6Yes, and that will be a very good start to save the earth.
- SkippyDoorknob, on 06/18/2008, -0/+6It's not like each house is disconnected from the grid and must supply their own power. Power can be routed from sunnier areas the same way power is shuffled around now.
- ideaash, on 06/18/2008, -3/+9Just 10 % by 2025, you got to be kidding me.
It is suppose to break even with coal power by just 2015. Why would you want to put any other kind of power station if solar power is as inexpensive as coal power. How about 50 % by 2025. - jjtcorsair, on 06/18/2008, -0/+6Solar already powers my house.
- bnolsen, on 06/18/2008, -0/+5No the fastest way to decrease price of oil is to increase oil supply and break the current cartels.
The way you suggest *is possible* long term.
To become a reality the free market MUST BE ALLOWED to develop this technology unhindered. Using communist/socialist style central planning to command commercial development has always failed and will continue to fail. And it's failing right now. Offshore, onshore and oil shale production are all currently being blocked...all by Democrats. Get the government out of controlling the market through legislation please!
One other thing people forget....there's VAST amounts of methane in the crust of the earth which deposits totally dwarf petroleum. Why not explore these resources too? - KirilTodorov, on 06/18/2008, -0/+5Wow, Exciting Times :)
- BigW, on 06/18/2008, -1/+6Actually for what they say to be true, there needs to be a breakthrough in solar technology. That breakthrough could happen next year or next decade. Bringing that to market will take at least 3-5 years.
They're blowing smoke claiming that current solar technologies can expand that much. But a lot of people are working hard at improving solar power. - inactive, on 06/18/2008, -9/+14Here's the deal. The world economy is petroleum based. It will remain petroleum based. Here is what will happen in the US. The democrats will continue to sabotage President Bush's energy initiatives for the next few months until they generate a strong backlash from the working class. Then the initiatives will be passed. Yay! We finally get to drill ANWR! This will chase speculators out of the oil markets and drop oil prices back to $50. This will also wound the liberals politically.
Solar and wind, are marginal at best because of their low power output for high capital cost. Solar thermal might be practical in the southwest. Hybrid and electric cars are promising. Pure electrics but are about a factor of 2 off in range from where they need to be. Nuclear power should be pursued vigorously. I would propose that the government transfer funds from social programs and farm subsidies and build a huge pilot nuclear plant for hydrogen generation. Hydrogen has promise. - dagamer34, on 06/18/2008, -2/+7The funny thing about oil is that for the US at least, most of it doesn't come from the US but our neighbors up north (Canada). But because you can't sell a commodity like oil extremely cheap in one part of the world and make it expensive elsewhere without chaos, they jack up the price here anyway.
And who really thinks that the oil that would come from ANWR would magically be cheaper than what's already available? The price of oil isn't high because of supply and demand. It's high because speculators KNOW oil isn't going to last us forever.
The fastest way to DECREASE the price of oil is to show to the world we are going to get rid of it in our daily lives over the long term. Then poof goes the reason to speculate over price. - mattl009, on 06/18/2008, -0/+5solar powers 90+% of my home already, payback will be 15 years tops (in MA, varies by state) with expected lifespan of the panels being at least 20 years. please tell me how your current coal/nuclear/gas/oil powered electricity pays for itself.
- ricksite, on 06/18/2008, -0/+4I think a solar water heater and a tankless water heater would make a good combination. The sun could heat water in a holding tank (similar to a traditional water heater tank) and the tankless water heater down line would make up the difference to reach the desired temperature.
- ralphodog, on 06/18/2008, -0/+4Not sure why you're being digged down. Solar panels taking off seems extremely unlikely. It's one of the costliest forms of green energy. Hydro/solar thermal/wind seem much more likely to take off.
- SolarPandaBot, on 06/18/2008, -0/+4Heating water in general "EATS power." At least with a tankless setup, you're not heating water that's just going to sit around and get cold.
- inactive, on 06/18/2008, -0/+4I think one of the biggest advantages of solar energy is the tremendous amount of money it saves on fuel, as the story points out. There's no doubt utility companies should invest heavily into the development of solar power.
- Technopope, on 06/18/2008, -0/+4Solar power isn't being used much because it is far too expensive.
In California, where the biggest tax rebates are given for residential solar power installations, it takes about 20 years to beak even. Without the tax credit, you would never break even, because after about 20 years of use, those solar panels need to be replaced.
Most homeowners can't afford to invest $30,000 for an investment that may never see a return, and very few will do it for the "feel good" factor of reduced reliance of fossil fuel.
Only when it makes financial sense will it happen, whether solar panel costs are significantly reduced (often promised, hasn't happened), or power bills become VERY high (on the way, but not very close). - doctechnical, on 06/18/2008, -1/+4Wake up. While you make a great point about terrestrial based solar, orbital collection is pretty sweet. I'd rather see these billions invested in orbital PowSats that beam the power back to earth. It might even turn NASA into a profit center.
- InnerBlueAbyss, on 06/18/2008, -7/+10 The Enviroment
I share George's thoughts on this too
"George Carlin's "The Planet Is Fine"
We're so self-important. So self-important. Everybody's going to save something now. "Save the trees, save the bees, save the whales, save those snails." And the greatest arrogance of all: save the planet. What? Are these f***ing people kidding me? Save the planet, we don't even know how to take care of ourselves yet. We haven't learned how to care for one another, we're gonna save the f***ing planet?
I'm getting tired of that s***. Tired of that s***. I'm tired of f***ing Earth Day, I'm tired of these self-righteous environmentalists, these white, bourgeois liberals who think the only thing wrong with this country is there aren't enough bicycle paths. People trying to make the world safe for their Volvos. Besides, environmentalists don't give a s*** about the planet. They don't care about the planet. Not in the abstract they don't. Not in the abstract they don't. You know what they're interested in? A clean place to live. Their own habitat. They're worried that some day in the future, they might be personally inconvenienced. Narrow, unenlightened self-interest doesn't impress me.
Besides, there is nothing wrong with the planet. Nothing wrong with the planet. The planet is fine. The PEOPLE are f***ed. Difference. Difference. The planet is fine. Compared to the people, the planet is doing great. Been here four and a half billion years. Did you ever think about the arithmetic? The planet has been here four and a half billion years. We've been here, what, a hundred thousand? Maybe two hundred thousand? And we've only been engaged in heavy industry for a little over two hundred years. Two hundred years versus four and a half billion. And we have the CONCEIT to think that somehow we're a threat? That somehow we're gonna put in jeopardy this beautiful little blue-green ball that's just a-floatin' around the sun?
The planet has been through a lot worse than us. Been through all kinds of things worse than us. Been through earthquakes, volcanoes, plate tectonics, continental drift, solar flares, sun spots, magnetic storms, the magnetic reversal of the poles...hundreds of thousands of years of bombardment by comets and asteroids and meteors, worlwide floods, tidal waves, worldwide fires, erosion, cosmic rays, recurring ice ages...And we think some plastic bags, and some aluminum cans are going to make a difference? The planet...the planet...the planet isn't going anywhere. WE ARE!
We're going away. Pack your s***, folks. We're going away. And we won't leave much of a trace, either. Thank God for that. Maybe a little styrofoam. Maybe. A little styrofoam. The planet'll be here and we'll be long gone. Just another failed mutation. Just another closed-end biological mistake. An evolutionary cul-de-sac. The planet'll shake us off like a bad case of fleas. A surface nuisance.
You wanna know how the planet's doing? Ask those people at Pompeii, who are frozen into position from volcanic ash, how the planet's doing. You wanna know if the planet's all right, ask those people in Mexico City or Armenia or a hundred other places buried under thousands of tons of earthquake rubble, if they feel like a threat to the planet this week. Or how about those people in Kilowaia, Hawaii, who built their homes right next to an active volcano, and then wonder why they have lava in the living room.
The planet will be here for a long, long, LONG time after we're gone, and it will heal itself, it will cleanse itself, 'cause that's what it does. It's a self-correcting system. The air and the water will recover, the earth will be renewed, and if it's true that plastic is not degradable, well, the planet will simply incorporate plastic into a new pardigm: the earth plus plastic. The earth doesn't share our prejudice towards plastic. Plastic came out of the earth. The earth probably sees plastic as just another one of its children. Could be the only reason the earth allowed us to be spawned from it in the first place. It wanted plastic for itself. Didn't know how to make it. Needed us. Could be the answer to our age-old egocentric philosophical question, "Why are we here?" Plastic...a******.
So, the plastic is here, our job is done, we can be phased out now. And I think that's begun. Don't you think that's already started? I think, to be fair, the planet sees us as a mild threat. Something to be dealt with. And the planet can defend itself in an organized, collective way, the way a beehive or an ant colony can. A collective defense mechanism. The planet will think of something. What would you do if you were the planet? How would you defend yourself against this troublesome, pesky species? Let's see... Viruses. Viruses might be good. They seem vulnerable to viruses. And, uh...viruses are tricky, always mutating and forming new strains whenever a vaccine is developed. Perhaps, this first virus could be one that compromises the immune system of these creatures. Perhaps a human immunodeficiency virus, making them vulnerable to all sorts of other diseases and infections that might come along. And maybe it could be spread sexually, making them a little reluctant to engage in the act of reproduction.
Well, that's a poetic note. And it's a start. And I can dream, can't I? See I don't worry about the little things: bees, trees, whales, snails. I think we're part of a greater wisdom than we will ever understand. A higher order. Call it what you want. Know what I call it? The Big Electron. The Big Electron...whoooa. Whoooa. Whoooa. It doesn't punish, it doesn't reward, it doesn't judge at all. It just is. And so are we. For a little while." - wubblie, on 06/18/2008, -0/+3I don't get it. Solar cells are not even feasible today. *Maybe* solar thermal will be feasible, but other than a couple of plants in death valley (the optimal location, obviously), everything else is in the pilot program stage. The big technological growth is not in energy generation, but in energy conservation. I just bought a 9w light bulb to replace my 75w bulb. My new laptop uses less than half as much electricity as the computer it replaced. Hybrids get twice the fuel economy, etc. These are way bigger margins than the (unrealistic) 10% replaced by solar. The government should be investing at least as much towards energy conservation technology as towards solar. That would make a much bigger difference.
- dafragsta, on 06/18/2008, -0/+3enlarging with bilinear filtering ftw.
- desertDenizen, on 06/19/2008, -0/+3No problem, the sunlight would still wind up as heat. Such as if your solar panels converted sunlight into electricity which then powered your TV or computer, which give off heat. It's no different than sun being collected by leaves on trees, which grow, and are then (for instance) burned as fuel.
- Noein, on 06/18/2008, -0/+3Solar water heaters are like $200 in China and it's ridiculously popular last time I went back. You can see them on the rooftops everywhere in the big cities. Wiki says 30+ million households in China now have one. Someone should import them to US, I imagine they'll sell well.
- legolas68, on 06/18/2008, -0/+3Maybe as a yearly total. Right now the daylight in Montana is at least 16 hours. Come December that will be more like 8 hours.
Do some BETTER research next time. - desertDenizen, on 06/19/2008, -0/+3"$16 trillion at current market prices"? ... hold the phone. Experience Curve effects mean that unit production cost comes down as cumulative production increases. Take, for instance, the drop in the price of memory, or sequencing a DNA base pair, or making a car on a production line. Power efficiency gains aside, solar will get MUCH cheaper to manufacture. This isn't wishful thinking; learning curve effects have been studied for years and are well understood:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experience_curve_effe ... - Wind4ever, on 06/18/2008, -0/+2If the panels are kept in the basement it may take longer...
But seriously looking at this, the price of the energy invested in producing the solar panel is a fraction of the total price. If the PV panels are economically efficient, then they are paying back the energy invested in them. (I hope we start using solar energy (thermal & electric) for making solar panels, this will help : ). - SolarPandaBot, on 06/18/2008, -0/+2Solar, unless it's concentrated solar thermal or batteries/storage get a lot cheaper, obviously wouldn't be able to deliver electricity in the night; however, it will still reduce demand on conventional generators during the day (even cloudy ones, but with reduced effectiveness). In the end, we'd account for supply interruptions with backup generation, much like our existing electric infrastructure.
- KMartSheriff, on 06/18/2008, -0/+2Just out of curiosity, does anyone know how much it costs to have a system like this installed?
- malex, on 06/18/2008, -0/+2That would be awesome and all, but there are basic feasibility issues. 7 years is a short time to build a whole new industry. We can't just push a button and have enough solar panels for 120 million homes appear at Home Depot overnight. It's going to be a slow process, but it will gain momentum.
- snareguy17, on 06/18/2008, -0/+2An interesting choice of picture as to what a lack of sun at all can do to someone.
- 47f0, on 06/18/2008, -0/+2Four letters for you: HVDC. Currently being used for runs as long as 1700km, with longer runs in the works.
- kieranmaine, on 06/18/2008, -0/+2You write "current market price". For a few years there's been a shortage of silicon as more computer chips are made a solar panels are produced. For example "Bloomberg reports that silicon prices have gone from $20-25/kilogram in 2004 to $100-200/kilogram in 2006". Since 90% of PVs are made from silicon the current market price the current market price will be high. Does G.E. take into account
1. The increase in silicon due to more production facilities?
2. The rise of thin film based PVs which use far less silicon and sometimes no silicon?
If G.E. hasn't examined these two factors you can hardly take there estimate seriously - if they have fair enough.
However, if you start reading up on solar within investment circles and looking at stock prices for companies (PV and Solar Thermal), solar seems like it will be a big player in the long term. - doctechnical, on 06/18/2008, -2/+4Two words for you: Line Loss.
A lot of the juice you ship from, say, sunny Nevada to cloudy Ohio is going to do nothing more than warm bird's feet as they perch on the power lines. - kieranmaine, on 06/18/2008, -0/+2You're tragically wrong. Germany and Japan have been funding solar for the last 15 years - they have some of the highest number of PV installations in the world and also a number of successful companies that are bringing in billions of dollars of orders. It appears they'll start to see a return over the next 15 years. Read through this for some facts on the success that Germany and Japan have had. http://216.239.59.104/search?q=cache:JJtZxpW3zm8J: ...
- floorman56, on 06/18/2008, -0/+2The required static inverters are expensive and have limited overload capacity. At smaller transmission distances the losses in the static inverters may be bigger than in an AC transmission line. The cost of the inverters may not be offset by reductions in line construction cost and lower line loss.
In contrast to AC systems, realizing multiterminal systems is complex, as is expanding existing schemes to multiterminal systems. Controlling power flow in a multiterminal DC system requires good communication between all the terminals; power flow must be actively regulated by the control system instead of by the inherent properties of the transmission line. - kieranmaine, on 06/18/2008, -1/+3If people really want solar to succeed, and cared about cutting emissions, they should start investing in solar power companies. Much like the German and Japanese governments have funded the rise and rise of solar, consumers could help do the same. And because people don't want to waste their money, you would hope they'd invest in the most promising and likely to succeed technology (I know this doesn't always happen in practice).
Get reading and start investing - or don't if you find out there's no future in Solar (Personally I'm starting to think there is, but there's a lot more to know than what a few articles on digg can tell us). - poidh, on 06/18/2008, -0/+2Sounds like you need more experience of life. Go get it.
- novenator, on 06/19/2008, -0/+2We *have* to invest in clean and green energy asap. Solar and wind first and foremost, with an emphasis on switchgrass ethanol (instead of corn), non-invasive hydro-electric, and yes, even a few more nuclear plants (even though the disposal of the waste is quite problematic). This *should* have been started back in the oil embargo in the 70s, but conservative republicans couldn't let down big business (especially oil).
- doctechnical, on 06/18/2008, -0/+2@47f0: When does the increase in efficiency pay for the cost of the infrastructure overhaul?
-
Show 51 - 100 of 120 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is