What is Digg?Sponsored by Best Buy
Best Buy Employees Turn Carolers For A Day view!
www.youtube.com/bestbuy - Go behind the scenes to see real employees croon their way to star in Best Buy's holiday campaign.
89 Comments
- Alphabet, on 10/12/2007, -1/+21at least environmentalist are trying to help out. All you do is bitch. If the land was unused before, then you may as well do something with it.
btw:
1000 hectares = 10,000,000 square meters or 10 square kilometers
1000 hectares = 107,639,000 square feet or 3.861022 square miles
If you look at the picture, they're using about .25 square miles to place the solar panels. So they're saving 1000 hectares of trees every year on those .25 square miles.
We in the US should do this; It seems like a great idea. We can place them in the desert, especially in death valley since nothing lives there anyway. If we stop the iraq war for one day, we can place 4060 hectares of solar panels with the money saved. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -4/+24 None, as it was built on a military base.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -6/+19Why can't we do that here in the U.S.A.?
Maybe it's against the law, as it seems everything else here is lately.
A Free Country (tm) my ass. - mage1129, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12They were all blown up in ballistics practice
- Rosco, on 10/12/2007, -6/+16Because we have senators like Edward Kennedy in Massachusetts who blocks things such as this that would help to save the environment.
- DangerStevens, on 10/12/2007, -3/+12Yes. Trees can't grow on a military base.
Seriously though, they had this huge open space and they've turned it something useful. Read worldchanging.com, environmentalists ARE intelligent about this sort of thing. - Alphabet, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7$10,000 of solar panels will supply your entire house with energy + surplus that you sell back to the power company. On average, the solar panels pay for themself after 8 to 10 years of use.
- SoccerBoy, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9"The installation saves 10,000 tons of CO2 yearly--the equivalent of 1,000 hectares of woodlands."
I'm guessing less then 1,000 hectares a year... - JasonPrini, on 10/12/2007, -6/+12In Capitalist America, music own you!
- opnotic, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Not to be alarmist... but the price for this seems really good. 58 million dollars?
We could have built 34,482 of these for the cost of the Iraq war.
Do I have that right? Assuming the Iraq war is 200 Billion.
whoa. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6What, run a giant extension cord to it?
- kremvax, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Currently the cost of the Iraq war is over $340 billion. At our current rate of expendeture (between $2 billion and $3 billion tax dollars / week) It will may reach more than a trillion US tax dollars before our current projected withdrawl.
So what would the power output be for an Iraq War cost worth of solar arrays?
Would it compare to the pre-war estimate of Iraqi oil we believed we'd be able to harvest? (Currently the civil war / persistant terrorist sabotage has drasticly limited the amout of Iraqui oil processed and sold. So much so that they have been importing oil for the last 5 years.)
A fun fact: Today (May 1) Marks the 3rd anniversary of President Bush's "Mission Accomplished" speech and photo opportunity from the deck of an aircraft carrier docked off of the California coast. At the time the mission was accomplished we had only spent $150 Billion, and only lost 500 soldiers. - Alphabet, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5@lucas
I got my information from wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hectares
1 hectare = .0.00386102 square miles
therefore .00386102 * 1000 = 3.86102 square miles - Alphabet, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4@mage1129
I don't know where you got this 50k to 70k from, but from the stories I read, they usually cost about 10k for a single household. Personally, I think you're just making it up. I tried to google up some examples, but can only find a couple stories where people listed the cost of the solar cells and savings.
http://www.thevillagenews.com/story.asp?story_ID=14287 (cost recouped in 7 years if they didn't get the discount)
Washington state university has a $60,000 installation that generates $14,200 of energy a year
California currently has a plan to build $2billion worth of solar cells, which will generate a $25billion dollar profit over a 25 year span. - LucasOman, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I believe the article said 1,000 hectares of woodlands.
- HarryBauzonia, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4We have done it. Drive up highway 395 past Adelanto, CA. Off to the left (as you're driving north) there's a huge area filled with these things. Apparently they work well too. I would expect them to out in the desert.
- helix400, on 10/12/2007, -5/+9Not to be a pessimist, but anything solar powered has consistently been just a drop in the bucket.
This power plant is another excellent example. Despite costing $48 million to build, it will only power roughly 3,300 houses. Also, in 2002, Germany released 804,701,000 tons of CO2. Saving 10,000 tons doesn't help all that much. (Source for the carbon emissions is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_ratio_of_GDP_to_carbon_dioxide_emissions) - Alphabet, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4You realize that 48million for 3300 homes will pay for itself after 10 years, right? At the moment, I spend $2000 on electricity per year. 2000 * 3300 =$6,600,000 electricity cost per year.
$48million divided by $6.6million = 7.27 years before it pays for itself. That's a great bargain. And you now have free electricty forever, or until the sun burns itself out in one billion years, whichever comes first. - mage1129, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Yes there are, but I am sure the German people would be quite upset to find out their tax dollars went to build a solar farm in a different country.
- Alphabet, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5your problem is that you're too pessimistic. At least do something... anything. But instead, the majority of people say "oh, it's impossible" and give up. If enough people do this, it can make a difference. If people stopped doing things because it got "too hard" then nothing in the world will ever get done.
- blahblah, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Toxic? From what I know, silicon is the second most abundant element in the earth's crust.
- mage1129, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5I am not sure if Americoons is a mistype or something completely rascist, but other then that asking everyone to shell out money to put solar pannels on their roof is ridiculous. Gas prices go up 50 cents and you already have people with problems. And putting solar panels everywhere is not going to solve the growing energy crisis. At least not the current solar technology.
- FozzTexx, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4My car gets forty rods to the hogshead and that's the
way I likes it. - helix400, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Doak, grow up. Just because you read a few sentences from my post does not mean you know all of my political views.
But since you do wonder, I believe that solutions that work through economics tend work best. Solutions that require force, regulation, high cost increases, and changing lifestyles do not. Let me be very clear about this. CURRENT SOLAR POWER TECHNOLOGY WILL NEVER BE A SOLUTION. You simply cannot force today's solar power technology to really work in our society.
That being said, I'm patently awaiting the release of a product being tested, which is a very simplified solar array lens. Because of the simple design, and the focusing of all light on one spot, it allows the product to be fairly cheap ($5,000 last I checked), and claims it can generate enough power to pay for itself in less than a decade. If it's true, and it comes out as an actual product, count on me sticking one on my roof. Why? Because the economics are that it will be cheaper in the long run. - fatJohn, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5The power output of this solar array is laughable at best. I am a definite supporter for Solar Power, but to believe that it is a realistic substitution to conventional power generation (coal/oil/nuclear) is a pipe dream. For a facility of that size to only produce around 5~10MW of energy is ridiculous. You could put a nuclear facility on the same plot of land and get around 1000 times the amount of power output. Not to say that nuclear power is the answer or to say that continued research into solar power isn't warranted, but let's figure out a way to get into the 1000MW range before we start praising solar power as the energy source that will save the day.
- ahhell, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3wow thats pretty big...go Germany!
Needs a bonus digg for www.treehugger.com LOL - LucasOman, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4@Alphabet
My issue is with this statement:
"So they're saving 1000 hectares of trees every year on those .25 square miles."
So, according to you, that .25 miles will have saved as much CO2 as 1,000 hectares of forest after the first year. After the second year, it will have saved as much CO2 as 2,000 hectares of forest. This is incorrect. That .25 square miles will save as much CO2 as exactly 1,000 hectares of forest. Period. This is because forests, just like the solar panels, have a continual rate of CO2 savings over the course of their lifespan. - LucasOman, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Assuming that all of those emissions are from power plants (which they're not, but this is for sake of argument), it would take 80,470 more solar panel arrays just like this one to eliminate all emissions.
That doesn't sound very feasible to me. - Alphabet, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4@lucas
about your last statement; you're right, I'm wrong on that.
But trading .25 acres of unused land to save 3.8 acres of forest is a good trade, right? We don't have to cut down trees or anything either, just place the solar panels on polluted land that nothing lives on. - lwatcdr, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I don't know. Germany would have saved a lot more CO2 by building a nuclear power plant on the land and planting alot of trees around it. The plant would have produced a lot more power and the trees would have provided some habitat for wildlife and absorbed CO2.
This seems all very media friendly and huggy feeling look how green we are but not as effective as it could have been. - Alphabet, on 10/12/2007, -0/+216.5 km of solar panels if laid side by side, not square km. Look at the picture. They're using about .25 square miles(or 0.647 square kilometers) to save 10 square kilometers or 3.86 square miles of forest land.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Lets cut down the trees to save the trees kinda ironic is it not
- fatJohn, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Sure, why not, via the space elevator... http://www.spaceelevator.com/ I think that it's a possibility in the next few decades.
- tomm, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2OneZeroZeroOne: read your reply (and your equation) again, and you might realise why you sound a bit daft. ;-)
- LucasOman, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3So far, you're the only one I've seen throwing around racial slurs. You, sir, are the very personification of ignorance.
- helix400, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3blahblah,
I have a number of factors to keep in mind:
1) It snows where I live. A lot. I need a device that can keep itself above the snow or that's easy to clear off. The one I'm looking at can do that.
2) My roof has two sides, niether of which is ideal for placing solar cells. The solar lens I discussed moves the mirrors depending on where the sun is during the day.
2) I need a device that has a small footprint, so if city or neighborhood codes won't allow me to put it on the roof, I can stick it out in the backyard.
3) I like the freedom of knowing that if I move, I can take the device with me. A roof with a bunch of solar cells don't work so well.
4) I'd be very surprised if solar panels can pay themselves off in 10 years. According to this spreadsheet, it would take a near optimum setup and reduced power usage in the home to pay itself off in 10 years. http://www.motherearthnews.com/downloads/simplesolar
5) The device I saw was in early field testing, and claimed it could make the cost break even in 3-5 years. I said "less than a decade" to play it safe.
6) The startup costs are very different. Normal solar cells on a roof need a startup cost of roughly $10,000 to $15,000. With how much that is, and how long it takes to get a return on your investment (about 12-20 years), solar cells on a roof isn't a very attractive option.
In short, I didn't lie. - repins, on 10/12/2007, -0/+21,000 hectares = 10 square kilometers
1,650 hectares = 16.5 square kilometers
Oops dropped some zeros :) - mage1129, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3yes and we would also get 0 watts from then as well.
- elnerdo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2For anyone actually seriously wondering how the power would reach Earth: The most feasible solution would be shooting the energy back to earth in microwaves, and collecting them. One big problem with this is how easily it could be used as a weapon, or the dangers if it was accidentally one mile ( not very far when you're talking about these distances ) off of its target.
- vikingcoder, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Let's get your numbers straight first.
[ http://tinyurl.com/hjdbe ] (Press release from the source - Shell Solar)
It's 16.5 (linear) km of panels on an already deforested plot that used to be part of a military base; upon completion, it will be 75 km of panels. That is an end-to-end measurement.
The plant covers a land area of 32 ha. The CO2 savings are equivalent to 1,000 ha of woodlands.
1000 vs. 32
That sounds like good efficiency to me. - Cronus6, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Doak: "So what? If everyone had solar panels on their roofs it would help a lot.
But, since you are one of those Americoons that believe money is God, I don't expect you to understand the long term."
Perhaps, that is until a hurricane or tornado comes along and destroys your $10,000 panels.
Also, some homeowners insurance policies do NOT cover solar panels, so along comes a major storm, and your plunged into the dark until you shell out (and find someone) to have the system repaired/replaced.
Additionally installation will void any warranty you have on your roof. - quentinp, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2If they'd used that space for wind power would it have made more or less power than the solar?
- blacklilyninja, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2thats just plain cool
- opnotic, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2o.k... at 320000000000 spent. That is 5520 of these solar arrays we could have built at 58 million each. I'm sure after making a few thousand we would find ways to drop the price even lower.
- mirzmaster, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3... or (more likely) until the solar panels breakdown. :) For accurate cost-benefit analysis you'd also have to factor in costs of maintenance for the solar panel farm.
I think it's a great idea to cover desert with solar panels. - elnerdo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@lwatcdr Not to mention more cost effective!
- riskable, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Demarche,
Your idea that solar isn't good for centralized power generation is a bit narrow. You probably meant to say, "Silicon panel arrays aren't good for centralized power generation." Which is mostly true, but I'd say it depends or what your priorities are and your needs. Using solar energy for centralized power (primary load) actually *is* a great idea that can work, but it requires a bit more involved engineering (more so than just an array of panels, but less than what would go into a nuclear plant). Here's how some power plants do it (sort of in reverse):
During the night when power loads on the grid are low, water is pumped into a large man-made lake (or series of water towers). When loads start to peak during the day, water is allowed to flow back out of the lake/towers allowing hydroelectric turbines kick in. These turbines add extra power to the grid alleviating a considerable amount of the load on the regular generators (no matter what they are). A system such as this can work just the same way with solar power:
Build a large solar-powered stirling cycle electrical generator (many design types available such as heliostat fields with towers, single-dish concentrators, etc) that supplies the grid with power during the day while simultaneously pumping water. At night, the power load can be completely handled with hydroelectric turbines. The only difficulty with this method is that it requires a lot of water and the solar generator needs to output at least twice as much energy during daylight hours than the load on the grid requires.
-Riskable
http://www.riskable.com
"I have a license to kill -9" - HarryBauzonia, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1...and all the animals that depend on that forest die.
- OneZeroZeroOne, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Actually, all the CO2 the tree absorbs is converted into and released as oxygen.
The tree needs to CO2 to conduct photosynthesis.
6H2O + 6CO2 -> C6H12O6+ 6O2 - evileddie, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Why build this in Germany, aren't there places with more sunshine per year than Gernmany??
-
Show 51 - 89 of 89 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is