digg

Join DiggAbout

Introducing Digg Dialogg!
Check out the first Digg Dialogg with Nancy Pelosi. More guests to be announced soon!

See the original image at blog.thesietch.org

Solar Powered Solar Power

blog.thesietch.org — Basically you use a little fossil fuels to get started, then the first however many turbines/panels off the line power the factory, from then on in it’s all carbon neutral.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • MarianaPeyton, on 06/25/2008, -0/+35Yeah, this fully renewable energy powered renewable energy factory is a really good idea.
    • recruz, on 06/25/2008, -6/+5Yes, but will it blend?
    • trickyt, on 06/25/2008, -0/+3Its more amazing than it should be. The power going to the factory is clean power that isn't going somewhere else. It would be equivalent for the factory to buy clean power "credits" or whatever, similar to when you sign up for Green Mountain 100% Wind energy. You don't actually get the power from the wind turbines themselves, but Green Mountain makes sure it gets to someone somewhere.
      • snapcase, on 06/25/2008, -3/+2That reminds me that Edison has a program that you can sign up for that tacks on an additional charge (i can't remember but it's a fair sum) to your bill to ensure that all of your electricity will come from "green" sources.

        Yeah like they're gonna magically make sure that only the electricity generated from "green" sources will find its way to your house off the grid.
        • Fordi, on 06/26/2008, -0/+1You're right, energy is indifferent as to its source, and can't be differentiated. Still, most of the electricity generation business is accounting; when you elect for 'green-only' sources, the green generators are the only ones to get your money, unless there's demand overflow (that is, more green-only demand than green-only generation). Otherwise, they get an even proportion of your money to the non-green sources.

          Meanwhile, I'm curious as to whether Nuclear counts as green energy; I don't have a problem with money going to a nuke plant. It's just coal, natural gas, and gas turbine plants I have a sustainability issue with.
    • gn0stik, on 06/25/2008, -0/+6So.... what came first? The solar panel, or the solar panel powered solar panel factory?
      • Fordi, on 06/26/2008, -0/+1The solar panel powered solar panel factory; it was fossil-fueled before it switched to solar, but the factory was there.
    • pr0t0, on 06/25/2008, -5/+4The whole operation is then a perpetual motion machine, which we know can't exist. Thus, it will never work.


      It's just a joke.
      • jpmatth, on 06/25/2008, -2/+1it's not, because the power is coming from the sun and not the factory itself.
      • noctiferis, on 06/25/2008, -3/+1actually.. you have no idea what it's talking about do you? a perpetual motion machine doesn't exist when there is no energy coming from the outside... but there is energy coming to this... lots and lots of it.. it a bloody solar panel station.. the sun is blasting its rays at us full of useful energy.. so please find facts before posting.. buy a dictionary or something
        • Fordi, on 06/26/2008, -0/+1"It's just a joke"

          Please always note the /sarcasm tag, no matter what form it takes.
    • NEUTRINO50, on 06/25/2008, -1/+0Carbon neutral? What? Well, I bloody hope so, otherwise its a power plant that requires more (carbon based) power to operate it then the (solar) power actually produces.
    • JettaMan, on 06/26/2008, -2/+1Uh, no it is not. These solar cells take all kinds of toxic substances to manufacture and they are way more costly than nuclear or hydro-dam power. Solar power costs many times more because it is inefficient i.e. it is wasteful as hell compared to other forms of electrical generation. Solar power is a scam that required cheating to survive i.e. government subsidies.
      • sodade, on 06/26/2008, -1/+2Our government subsidizes oil by not making you pay the true costs of ***** pollution in to the air.

        Solar thermal is not toxic and requires no spendy risk analysis like nukes - in the SW, it will easily be cheaper than nuke plants. Dams require rivers and mess up ecologies.
        • JettaMan, on 06/26/2008, -1/+1Nuke power is highly refined and stable. When is the last time you heard of a problem with them in France? That's basically all they use there. Oh, and it's cheaper.

          And in places like Arizona, making dams to generate energy actually helps the ecology. They have lots of dry barren desert so the dams they set up add beautiful locations for fishing and water activities.
      • kieranmaine, on 06/26/2008, -0/+1Some Solar cells use toxic materials. It depends a lot on the materials, obviously. Still as some nuclear power stations have shown us, the use of toxic materials involved in power generation doesn't have to be dangerous if dealt with properly.

        Sodade also makes a good point regarding Solar Thermal which you responded to. Are you for/against solar thermal?

        Solar power is getting cheaper year on year and has had a helpful kick start thanks to Germany and Japan. How much government money was spent on researching nuclear power though? I don't know so if you can link me to some good articles that would be helpful. If nuclear had large amount of government help to start with, you can't moan about solar having the same help. As you point out why should one form of power be subsidized over another.
    • BESTenemy, on 06/26/2008, -0/+1Fossil fuel processing produces not only energy, but also the materials such as plastics. Clean energy does not produce byproducts, so in order to provide for its own manufacturing it has to cover the material extraction costs on top of energy costs. Can the solar farm power a solar plant? Why not. Can it also build a plant, build machinery, and power mining equipment? Well... when was the last time you saw a battery powered mining truck or tractor?

      Oh yeah, and the solar plant is not going to be producing fertilizers for growing food to feed the workers involved in the whole "electron" economy.

      Oil is much more than just energy.
      • Fordi, on 06/26/2008, -0/+1Fossil fuel is finite. The more we waste it on energy production, the less is available for production of plastics and fertilizer. Solar and its derivatives (wind, hydro, wave) are not, and nuclear, while finite, could last another 500 years (if you take into account next-gen designs utilizing thorium over uranium - which, given that thorium alone is only about 10 years off, and uranium will last at LEAST another hundred, is reasonable. Thorium should last 400 at current consumption growth, which should give us enough time to get fusion right if we don't procrastinate. Maybe by then, there will be batteries that don't suck)

        "Well... when was the last time you saw a battery powered mining truck or tractor?"

        Never - but that's not to say they couldn't be built. When you're building for accessory torque rather than vehicular speed, you can add quite a number of batteries to a system without compromising your goals.
    • solarweasel, on 06/26/2008, -0/+2I'd like to see a gym where all the TVs are powered by people on exercise equipment, like stationary bicycles. If they dont go fast enough, the entertainment goes out.
      • Fordi, on 06/26/2008, -0/+1That's actually a pretty nifty idea... and they could run passively as well: use a toroidal CVT connected to the generator so that generation (and thus, resistance) ramps up as speed does. Full efficiency, as you end up not wasting a drop of that precious human juice.
  • mentallyinhell, on 06/25/2008, -1/+29About ***** time.
    • kingfoot, on 06/25/2008, -0/+1i dont understand why we havnt done this before...

      when i first started learning about solar power as a kid, and all these advantages and disadvantages (from more than 10 years ago) i wondered why we couldnt use a little regular energy to star up a machine that uses solar energy and then it can power more machines and bring the cycle back to be completely self sufficient.
  • dougvfr750, on 06/25/2008, -0/+20Bootstrapped clean energy production... I like it
  • DiggLive, on 06/25/2008, -1/+18Fully renewable energy powered renewable energy factory? My brain just exploded.
    • chaaalieboy, on 06/25/2008, -1/+5It's almost like dividing by zero....
  • v8wang, on 06/25/2008, -1/+4Pretty cool, wonder when it will actually convince the oil companies to start changing.
    • krnldmp, on 06/25/2008, -0/+6The only way to change an oil company is to shut it off.
    • twiztidsinz, on 06/25/2008, -0/+2500billion?
    • elnerdo, on 06/25/2008, -1/+2When solar panels aren't unreasonably expensive?
      When there's a feasible alternative for personal transportation than the gas-powered car?
      When they run out of oil?
    • Indrius, on 06/26/2008, -0/+1"Solar compared to Gasoline

      The amount of energy distributed by a single gas station in a single day equivalent to the amount of energy that would produced by four Manhattan sized city blocks of solar equipment. (There are over 170,000 gas stations in the U.S. alone.)"
    • Fordi, on 06/26/2008, -0/+1Heh. If there is a proper mandate to switch our energy economy over to non-fossil sources, I guarantee you that there will be a HUGE marketing campaign involving little plastic nick nacs.
  • AmyVernon, on 06/25/2008, -2/+4cool!
  • XFi6, on 06/25/2008, -3/+7I'm guessing they're probably going to make wind-powered wind generators too.
  • roflomg, on 06/25/2008, -5/+0*****

    Heh.
    • recruz, on 06/25/2008, -0/+1you said *****
    • gn0stik, on 06/25/2008, -0/+2Yeah, I like how they squeeze cusswords into their normal words.

      hyuk hyuk.
  • beauley, on 06/25/2008, -2/+3With Global Warming on many people's minds, do we have any ideas of the best way to lessen the impact on our future, or maybe a possible relief of its possible ravages or even a possible key to its eventual reversal. Many scientific experts have proposed
    http://www.quazen.com/Science/Technology/Solar-Pow ...
    Solar Power, Source of Endless Energy
    • solarweasel, on 06/26/2008, -0/+2While yes, we have the ability to convert much larger amounts of sunlight into electricity... but for every watt of light absorbed and transformed into electrical energy, one less watt is being absorbed by the planet in the form of thermal energy.
  • Seidoger, on 06/25/2008, -3/+2So meta-energetic!
  • macapplejobs, on 06/25/2008, -6/+2its like asexual reproduction
  • krnldmp, on 06/25/2008, -2/+6Its a no-brainer folks. Its just the way you do it.
  • superkendall, on 06/25/2008, -7/+2A great idea but as the article notes, the use of solar at this plant only puts a dent in the power needs for the plant, and comes nowhere near meeting the requirements for manufacture.

    I'm sure we'll see it happen someday, but the title of this Digg submission really jumps the gun.
  • wassim2k, on 06/25/2008, -6/+3WTF I got a seizure from reading that description.
  • leerayIG88, on 06/25/2008, -5/+1Feel the power.
    --axel (Twisted Metal)
  • B08ama, on 06/25/2008, -5/+1What happens when the sun goes out and the Earth loses angular velocity? We need to think ahead, people!
    • gn0stik, on 06/25/2008, -0/+2Dyson Sphere. Duh.
      • simg, on 06/25/2008, -0/+1how would that help if the sun went out ?
        • reneu, on 08/03/2008, -0/+0Yeah, that's why the next Republican president will order the construction of the Death Star instead. This also explains why Star Wars has and always have kicked Star Trek's ass. The Federation is going to have to get dark and dirty like BSG. Even Firefly did it in a fun way. And with BSG ending soon, there's no better opportunity than to dust off the old franchise that is Star Trek and spin it on its head. Does Ron Moore want that job?
        • reneu, on 08/03/2008, -0/+0Also, if we lost angular velocity with the sun and drifted off into space, I think we would end up at the next most stable lagrangian gravity point. I wonder if that could be precisely calculated. Where's Data when you need him...
    • noctiferis, on 06/25/2008, -0/+2we ask the multivac how to reverse entropy
      • ennio, on 06/26/2008, -0/+1"....let there be light"



        .....oh the irony. :)
  • Barackalypse, on 06/25/2008, -1/+8The fact that the factory is solar powered does not make the process of producing solar panels carbon neutral. Ask yourself where the silica came from, do you think the mining and transport vehicles run on solar power or diesel fuel?
    • krnldmp, on 06/25/2008, -0/+5Ho ho ho. If the only trucks on the road were hauling sand to be turned into solar panels we'd be in REALLY good shape, Dude.
      • Barackalypse, on 06/25/2008, -0/+1No, it would mean we'd be in awful shape because our economy would have been reduced to moving sand, instead of consumer goods and food and other items =) However, I understand your point, though there was a much better way of saying it.
        • Fordi, on 06/26/2008, -0/+1Local production reduces the need for interstate hauling. My guess is that the sand for the plant will come from VERY near the plant.
    • scubachef11, on 06/25/2008, -1/+2Isn't that inevitable? For now at least, I mean.
    • gn0stik, on 06/25/2008, -0/+4Silica fairies and rainbow power. You'd poke a puppy in the eye with a stick wouldn't you.

      Seriously, the point is, that it was about the production side, not the supply side, and that's a huge step.
    • B1663r, on 06/25/2008, -0/+1If they make surplus electric and sell it back to the grid offsetting the carbon emiting power that they use, then it is carbon neutral.

      Betcha you didn't think of that, did ya?
      • Barackalypse, on 06/25/2008, -0/+1No I didn't, but as a counterpoint I bet you didn't think of what happens if they build the plant in a region supplied mostly by hydroelectric or nuclear power, which would mean most of the power the plant would have used without the panels didn't generate carbon emissions to begin with, so the fact that the plant is using solar panels instead isn't offsetting very much.
        • B1663r, on 06/25/2008, -0/+1Well it is Japan, and they are only second compared to the US in fossil fuel consumption...
        • Barackalypse, on 06/26/2008, -0/+1Except total consumption is irrelevant when we're talking offsetting carbon emissions from power generation. Japan generates 30% of its electricity using nuclear power:
          http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/PressReleases/2007/ ...
          If you happened to build your solar plant in an area entirely supplied by nuclear power, you wouldn't be offsetting any carbon by using solar power instead of nuclear power. I'd suggest in Japan you'd only get 50-60% of the carbon offsetting that these calculations used, because I suspect they assumed whatever power they produced offset carbon as if it was a coal or gas fired plant producing the power.
  • beachbumx3x, on 06/25/2008, -4/+4this is old news --- o wait, that was in "Total Annihilation"
    • portilaj, on 06/25/2008, -0/+3Ahhh yes, the energy to mass converter. very expensive though.
  • portilaj, on 06/25/2008, -5/+1Ultimately it's a novelty PR move. It makes no difference whether a solar-power factory runs off of solar panels or whether a toothpaste factory runs off of solar panels. The only important thing is that somebody is powering a factory using solar panels.

    I say lets burn up all the rest of our fossil fuels as quickly as possible making billions of Solar Panels & Windmills. Better then using fossil-fuels to make trucks, yeah?
  • postaldave, on 06/25/2008, -6/+1can we stop with the carbon footprint ***** already?

    i'm all for new energy and anything tech but this constant reverence to biggest scam in history is getting old.
    • BJLStorm, on 06/25/2008, -1/+3You just don't get it do you? When we use resources... THERE ARE LESS RESOURCES. Eventually, mankind WILL run out of fossil fuels, and will have to find new ways to make energy (if you want to continue watching that HD TV and posting on Digg that is). So renewable energy = good. And yes, our use of carbon does ***** up the environment somewhat. Clean air = good, smog = shorter life span (this is known). Who knows if it leads to global warming... but why find out when it's already too late?
      • postaldave, on 06/26/2008, -0/+1"And yes, our use of carbon does ***** up the environment somewhat"

        prove that! tell me how us carbon based people in a carbon based world can't live with ....carbon!

        then tell me how the sun has no effect on the temp. of the earth.

        carbon does not equal pollution.

        just because i'm not some mindless sheep led by algore and the propaganda press does not make me anti-tech or pro-pollution.
  • Kornstalx, on 06/25/2008, -4/+16I had a solar-powered flashlight, once.
    Damn thing never worked when you needed it.
  • fruscianteisgod, on 06/25/2008, -4/+1this is a great idea! but im sad to say that for this to happen in mass is probably wishful thinking
  • mewplustwo, on 06/25/2008, -5/+0E = solar²
  • eekzee, on 06/25/2008, -3/+0Sharp is so keen
  • cpsutcliffe, on 06/25/2008, -0/+4Or in layman's terms: Solar thing goes in, Solar thing comes out.

    the sake is a lie
  • iliveinthedark, on 06/25/2008, -5/+0Go Go Power Rangers! You mighty morphin' Power Rangers......!!!!
  • Hangly, on 06/25/2008, -1/+3In this house we obey the laws of thermodynamics!
  • drgirlfriend, on 06/25/2008, -1/+1The Department of Redundancy Department.
  • JarJar420, on 06/25/2008, -5/+0Meesa waiting for the beer powered ethanol plant :)
  • OpCzar, on 06/26/2008, -3/+1Closer to perpetual motion FTW.
  • majikmixx, on 06/26/2008, -0/+2"A fully renewable energy powered renewable energy factory" -wait, what? Oh! =)
  • darkfus, on 06/26/2008, -0/+1It's like a solar powered flash-light...
  • kingoflemonde, on 06/27/2008, -0/+1This is super. Now we need a solar-powered solar-powered-factory making factory and the technology to transport them to suitable future solar factory sites. The troubling thing is that in less than a century we won't be able to make factories like this because we won't have the cheap abundant fossil fuel resources to make this kind of infrastructure. It is absolutely vital that we focus on this kind of development now while we still have the natural resources to undertake projects like this...on a side note...I wouldn't build this thing to close to the ocean...mother nature can dish out some pretty intense spankings.
  •  

    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.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.