Pres Obama convinced the House not to spend our kids' inheritance

[Le Jacquelope]

What are the odds that the U.S. Senate will get the point and pass this energy bill?

Because without the help of the solar revolution, there is no such thing as cheap energy - we're just passing on the real costs to our kids in the form of global warming and grossly polluted air, water and food.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

The oceans are filled with water. If we did the science we'd find a way to convert water to non-polluting hydrogen fuel. When you burn hydrogen you get WATER,

A Manhattan Project to create the technology would be trillions cheaper than taxing everyone to pay off the lawyers.

 

[Boxlicker101]

What are the odds that the U.S. Senate will get the point and pass this energy bill?

Because without the help of the solar revolution, there is no such thing as cheap energy - we're just passing on the real costs to our kids in the form of global warming and grossly polluted air, water and food.

There are other forms of cheap energy, such as hydroelectric, geothermal, tidal, wind, wave and burning garbage. There are just no ways yet of producing enough energy through these methods to replace fossil fuels.

There's also nuclear, but that's expensive to set up and there are other problems.

 

[sr71plt]

Saying there is no way to replace fossil fuel is suggesting that humans aren't very clever. There continuously are sweeping changes that have revolutionized what we needed and changed what we can't do without. It's not having much faith or imagination or sense of history to suggest that we can't reduce our need for fossil fuels by wholesale changes in what power we need and where it can come from to do things in an entirely different way.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Saying there is no way to replace fossil fuel is suggesting that humans aren't very clever. There continuously are sweeping changes that have revolutionized what we needed and changed what we can't do without. It's not having much faith or imagination or sense of history to suggest that we can't reduce our need for fossil fuels by wholesale changes in what power we need and where it can come from to do things in an entirely different way.

I would never say fossil fuels can't be replaced, because the time will come when they must be. It can't be done yet, but it will be done eventually.

Solar is being used right now, although not as much as it will be. As I drive on some highways, I see light standards on the sides of the pavement and they have solar panels attached. I don't know how reliable they are, because I don't drive there at night very often.

 

[sr71plt]

Hmmm, well, that's essentially what you did post.

 

[Liar]

The oceans are filled with water. If we did the science we'd find a way to convert water to non-polluting hydrogen fuel. When you burn hydrogen you get WATER,

We know how to do that already. But it takes more energy to break up H2O into H and 2O than we get from burning H. (Not to mention the excess O, not sure if that comes out as oxygen or ozone from the process.)

The best chance to get that done is to use solar power. All you need for that is an assload of space. This seems to be the smartest solution yet. Compared to reflectors, which wouldhave to stay very shiny to be effective, it would require much less maintenance.

 

[Le Jacquelope]

We know how to do that already. But it takes more energy to break up H2O into H and 2O than we get from burning H. (Not to mention the excess O, not sure if that comes out as oxygen or ozone from the process.)

The best chance to get that done is to use solar power. All you need for that is an assload of space. This seems to be the smartest solution yet. Compared to reflectors, which wouldhave to stay very shiny to be effective, it would require much less maintenance.

An assload of space? Moreso than the total space used for coal plants, oil refineries, etc.?

 

[Liar]

An assload of space? Moreso than the total space used for coal plants, oil refineries, etc.?

I don't know how big a metric assload is, but yes. As far as I've been told, a solar powered turbine tower plant (or a solar reflector site or a solar cell grid, for that matter) that produces X amounts of Wh takes up a much bigger area than a coal or nuke plant with the same capacity. Including the coal or uranium mines and refineries needed. Solar radiation is not that effective a source of energy, compared to for instance combustion.

But that's not really any major obstacle. So what if it's big? It's not like we're running out of area any time soon. You could put a grid of those babies in the middle of the desert. All you need is for someone to drive around on top of it and sweep off the dust once in a while.

 

[Le Jacquelope]

I don't know how big a metric assload is, but yes. As far as I've been told, a solar powered turbine tower plant (or a solar reflector site or a solar cell grid, for that matter) that produces X amounts of Wh takes up a much bigger area than a coal or nuke plant with the same capacity. Including the coal or uranium mines and refineries needed. Solar radiation is not that effective a source of energy, compared to for instance combustion.

But that's not really any major obstacle. So what if it's big? It's not like we're running out of area any time soon. You could put a grid of those babies in the middle of the desert. All you need is for someone to drive around on top of it and sweep off the dust once in a while.

Indeed. And don't forget the benefit of outsourcing solar production to home rooftops. Anything with a surface pointed constantly at the sun is fair game here.

I've heard that 500 sq miles could serve the entire country's power needs. This is assuming solar power doesn't become more efficient. And that doesn't count third generation cells which can use infrared energy at night time to produce electricity.

At some point the maintenance costs for a solar cell plant also approach near-zero, what with having fewer moving parts than a hydro or coal fired plant and lacking the radioactive toxicity of a nuclear plant.

Take the trough in the Mojave Desert. 350 megawatts, and eventually all you'll need is someone to wipe the panels. It'll just sit there and generate. That also means it will someday approach $0 per kilowatt hour, minus the initial installation cost.

What's stopping it is the fossil fuel industry keeps screaming "initial installation cost!!!" and "BREAK EVEN POINT!!" at the top of their lungs... while never allowing the discussion to roam anywhere toward the true costs of the dominant power source: coal. Then there's the tree huggers who hate nuclear power, which we could use at night. Yay, France.

 

[Le Jacquelope]

Speaking of solar on every roof, I must speak of a caveat: from what I understand it works best on houses with a lot of southerly exposure. My roof is custom, I literally had it mostly slanted that way. It looks weird but hey, this isn't an investment house - we're living here, and we like it when the meter moves backward. In the future when energy prices are going through the roof they're gonna want houses like this.

 

[sr71plt]

If I put solar on my roof, I'd have to chop down a whole hell of a lot of trees--and in my neighbors' yards as well. Sophia's choice.

Not that I'm against solar panels. Had them in Cyprus, where it's logical to have them. It just isn't logical to have them on EVERY roof.

 

[Liar]

Indeed. And don't forget the benefit of outsourcing solar production to home rooftops. Anything with a surface pointed constantly at the sun is fair game here.

They do that in Germany already. Feed the grid when the sun shines, and gets that reducted from their power bills. Only problem is that the only practical way to do it is with solar cells. Which are still quite expensive. And not exactly environment-friendly to manufacture. Better than nothing though, but at the moment relying on subsidies for installation.

I've heard that 500 sq miles could serve the entire country's power needs. This is assuming solar power doesn't become more efficient. And that doesn't count third generation cells which can use infrared energy at night time to produce electricity.

Um... you're gonna have to fill me in on that. What infrared energy at night? Even if it's non-visible, it has to come from somewhere, namely the sun. Which is shining on the other side of the panet by then. Solar panels that could absorb ultraviolet and infrared would be more effective, but they would still only work during the day.

At some point the maintenance costs for a solar cell plant also approach near-zero, what with having fewer moving parts than a hydro or coal fired plant and lacking the radioactive toxicity of a nuclear plant.

Yep. Except a guy with a broom. But maintenance cost for a few moving parts isn't all that big a part of the big picture either. The cost for raw material (coal, oil and uranium) and waste management is the big kahuna. Which is why I think solar heat generated wind turbines is such a good idea. Because you can make it with extremely simple and cheap technology. And like I said, until someone comes up with new materials that turns light into electricity, solar cells will be too toxic to manufacture to really call it environmentally friendly.

 

[Liar]

If I put solar on my roof, I'd have to chop down a whole hell of a lot of trees

Hang it in the trees then.

 

[sr71plt]

Hang it in the trees then.

They would have to somehow hover over the trees. Shinny up there and show me where to put them.

(And then deal with the ordinance that nothing modern in design can to placed where it can be seen from Monticello.)

 

[Liar]

(And then deal with the ordinance that nothing modern in design can to placed where it can be seen from Monticello.)

Pfft, it's the 21st century baybee, they gotta learn to roll with the times.

 

[Le Jacquelope]

They do that in Germany already. Feed the grid when the sun shines, and gets that reducted from their power bills. Only problem is that the only practical way to do it is with solar cells. Which are still quite expensive. And not exactly environment-friendly to manufacture. Better than nothing though, but at the moment relying on subsidies for installation.

It seems the drama I hear about solar cells is all about when they're manufactured: the cost and chemical toxicity. I'm less concerned about that than the ongoing toxicity involved with the running of fossil fuel plants.

Um... you're gonna have to fill me in on that. What infrared energy at night? Even if it's non-visible, it has to come from somewhere, namely the sun. Which is shining on the other side of the panet by then. Solar panels that could absorb ultraviolet and infrared would be more effective, but they would still only work during the day.

Right now it's not efficient to draw on infrared energy at night, but here's some info on where they could go with it in the future.
http://www.greenoptimistic.com/2008/08/13/solar-power-gold-nano-antenna/

Yep. Except a guy with a broom. But maintenance cost for a few moving parts isn't all that big a part of the big picture either. The cost for raw material (coal, oil and uranium) and waste management is the big kahuna. Which is why I think solar heat generated wind turbines is such a good idea. Because you can make it with extremely simple and cheap technology. And like I said, until someone comes up with new materials that turns light into electricity, solar cells will be too toxic to manufacture to really call it environmentally friendly.

The issue with the earth friendliness of solar cells versus coal power plants is degrees. Cadmium versus mercury and all that. How do we sequester the toxicity involved in making solar cells? I know sequestering coal ash is practically... difficult.

As for the expense of solar cells... we're paying the price of these devices up front. It appears to me, however, that the expense of coal power comes later, after it's smoked up the chimney...

 

[sr71plt]

Come down here to Jefferson country and try to say that.

Our major "change" controversy is whether to change the columns on the buildings on the Lawn back to Jefferson's intended tan from white.

 

[Liar]

The issue with the earth friendliness of solar cells versus coal power plants is degrees. Cadmium versus mercury and all that. How do we sequester the toxicity involved in making solar cells? I know sequestering coal ash is practically... difficult.

Well yeah, if you're going to compare it to coal....

I was comparing solar cells to other types of solar energy. Thermal effects and generators instead of direct photovoltaic conversion to elecrtricity.

 

[Le Jacquelope]

Well yeah, if you're going to compare it to coal....

I was comparing solar cells to other types of solar energy. Thermal effects and generators instead of direct photovoltaic conversion to elecrtricity.

Ah, misread ya a bit there. I'm more fond of solar cells (PV) because of the potential benefits of the spray-on tech that's coming out, but CSP (the ones you favor) systems are far friendlier to the environment.

Ultimately the world has room for both technologies. It just depends on which will be the most energy efficient.