A Solar Grand Plan

re: A Solar Grand Plan

glassman — Sun, 09 Mar 2008 02:19:50 GMT

Solar is a good idea but it will NEVER supply base load power for the grid. It also has a greater CO2 footprint than wind or nuclear(more than 10 times). If the US started building nuclear plants tommorow, in 10 years we could shut down every coal, wood gas and oil fired power plant we have. With world electricty demand increasing to twice what is by 2030 we have no choice but nuclear. Your lifetime net waste from NP would fit in a soda can, from coal it is several box cars worth. In 1999 coal combustion released over 1000 tons of of uranium and 2500 tons of thorium into the AIR you breath. A NP would release 0. What would you rather have, the waste in the air or in a small drum in a secure location? The anti-NP lobby is funded by the coal and oil companies.

If you want to learn the truth about NP I urge you to read "Power To Save The World" by Gwynth Cravens.

re: A Solar Grand Plan

glassman — Sun, 09 Mar 2008 02:19:49 GMT

If you want to learn the truth about NP I urge you to read "Power To Save The World" by Gwynth Cravens.

re: A Solar Grand Plan

johanna :- — Fri, 07 Mar 2008 03:42:53 GMT

i heard/read somewhere that solar panels produce a very toxic waste when they are old/dismantled, etc.. i wonder if this is true, and how much waste there actually is? if it is small amounts, perhaps it could be dealt with/recycled/ etc.. if not, we could have another large problem on our hands and in our bodies...

i hope what i had heard is not true, but it WOULD make sense as, in accordance with the principles of entropy, we can never ''beat'' the energy system. i guess the thing is to decide which energy harvesting is least harmful and how best to use/recycle the waste.

re: A Solar Grand Plan

sully — Thu, 06 Mar 2008 15:57:08 GMT

This would be a much more informative and pleasant site to read if more people would abandon their proclivity to using it as a political forum and stick to the facts.

re: A Solar Grand Plan

Andreamn — Thu, 06 Mar 2008 10:42:47 GMT

I can say I am truly disappointed in both the Democrat party and Republican party in regard to them not wanting to solve our energy needs here in the United States. It seems to me that practical ideas do not generate much interest by Either political entities here. For instance here in Nebraska we have an abundance of wind power, yet very few wind turbines can be seen being utilized. There are three between Lincoln and Omaha and my neighbor has one in his backyard, Bellevue. I have been told that turbines are an eyesore, they are a danger to the birds, etc. I can tell you this after living by one for over 5 years now, I do not see them as an eyesore, I never am bothered by noise, nor smell or smoke. I am sure if we put our collective minds together we could overcome any obstacle that these turbines have on wildlife. I for one am willing to have these wind turbines in my own backyard for clean, efficient, safe energy.

Another thing that bothers me as I pointed out about practical solutions. I live in a newer neighborhood, and we have all of these wonderful covenants to abide by for the well being of our neighborhood. One of these covenants is that we are not allowed to hang laundry out in our own backyards. It is deemed an eyesore. Wouldn't it be wonderful though if we saw that hanging laundry out on clothes lines as a practical approach to help save energy. If every family who has a backyard was to install a clothesline of some sort was to put just one load of laundry a week out for instance instead of using the dryer couldn't this small effort have impact on energy needs.

I think there are more practical, common sense things we can do to contribute towards a more efficient, cleaner world. We just need to work together and not rely on our government as much as we do. Isn't it pretty obvious at this point that the interest of the American people have not been served by those in power.

re: A Solar Grand Plan

Voltaire — Thu, 06 Mar 2008 06:37:19 GMT

Nanosolar is very cost effective. At retail of 99 cents a watt, their panels are 15% to 20% of the average cost of silicon crystal panels that are often 5.00 a watt and up.

Their secret is using 3 or 4 inexpensive metals sprayed on a substrate that can be mylar, glass or other surfaces. So little metal is sprayed on it amounts to only ounces of copper and other trace metals per powered home. Nanosolar sprays on the metals in layers with what amounts to inkjet printers running on a high speed printing press. Very precise, but very little materials and very little labor.

So far, Nanosolar is building panels only for huge power companies who have bought up their future capacity. The result if Nanosolar does not sell direct to You and I, will be a repeat of the J.P. Morgans and George Westinghouse types owning the system and we get a monthly bill for our laziness. Our failure to set up power on our own roofs that we could will to our children some day.

Power, like Health, is something We should take Responsibility for.

re: A Solar Grand Plan

drcrunch — Thu, 06 Mar 2008 04:47:32 GMT

Solar can be closer then we think. The technology already exists to use mirrors to heat water and run turbines. Water can be pumped for storage when the sun goes down. This technology is cleaner and less consumptive of resources. The main problem to solve is transmitting the electricity long distances (like from Death Valley to NY.). We definitely have to explore this option soon. We just need banks of mirrors directed at a heat collecting apparatus and we are in business. Almost too simple to be true, but in fact generators like this are already in operation. Wow!

re: A Solar Grand Plan

hikingchild — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 19:32:41 GMT

I echo a previous post noting the problems of living with oil and gas industries, the supposedly "green" alternatives to coal. Extractive industries do not make good neighbors. Solar power plants may not make good neighbors either, but you'd have to live in a state which hosts a lot of extractive industries before you can appreciate how bad a bad neighbor can be. I ranted earlier about "mountaintop removal" of coal.

A true story: As a recovering Celiac I already suffer from early onset hip arthritis. My right knee was broken when I was a child and was never set properly. I had anthroscopic surgery on it 20 years ago. By my screen name you may gather that I love to hike, and when I hike I take great care on steep downhill slopes -- going slow, walking in a series of short switchbacks when possible, using hiking poles, etc, and occasionally toss my dignity aside to scoot down some precipitous slopes on my rump.

But I have been limping for 6 weeks. I have arthritis in a new place now -- that right knee. On an outing with my hiking club 6 weeks ago I navigated a long, 70 degree down hill slope. I felt I did not have the option of taking my usual slow pace as half-way down there was a gas line pumping station which was hemmorghing methane. So, in order to get by it as quickly as possible I walked down with my knees straight ahead, quickly.

And so now I have a new arthritis hot spot to contend with. I'm stretching and doing my isometric exercises, and hoping against hope I can still take my planned hiking trip to Scotland this summer. Does the gas company know or even care about the consequences of their negligence? Probably not. We were on state owned land where hunters, hikers and fishermen could be expected to visit. But as far as extractive industries are concerned we are "in the way." They only care about getting their gas (or oil, or coal,) and nothing else. We need to get away from using these fossil fuels. None of them are "cean."

re: A Solar Grand Plan

yanchyshyn — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 17:18:13 GMT

The Bush administration closed the EPA libraries where studies were kept that citizens could use to seek action to clean up the environment. The files were taken from these libraries and dumped in one location without proper archiving. This was done to "cut costs." It saved about $500,000. Hey, we gotta have money for bombs!

re: A Solar Grand Plan

bbrodhead — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 14:30:17 GMT

solar is not very cost effective. You can buy a 26 watt CFL light to replace a 150W incandescent light, this will cost you around 3 bucks. A 100 watt solar will cost you around $500. So replace all you lights with CFL lights and get 150 times more bang for the buck! Considering the price of your house changing out all your edison light bulbs is super cheap. Plus you do not need to turn on the air conditioner to remove the excess heat of incandescent light bulbs.

re: A Solar Grand Plan

LadyPam — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 09:10:05 GMT

If solar power will really finally become practical and economical then that's wonderful news. At the moment, I don't know enough about the intricacies of the science and the economics (and I really have to spend time on my nutrition coursework).

We must remember to each cut down on wasting energy. Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't the average american consume far more energy than anyone else in the world?

On US tv shows and movies, I often notice that characters walk into their empty homes and all the lights are on, also that there are regularly many lights burning while bright sunlight streams through the windows! Enlighten me: do Americans really do this? I know tv is not real life.

re: A Solar Grand Plan

HansMassage_203 — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 07:30:11 GMT

Join the corus announcing God's solution

(Revelation 11:18) But the nations became wrathful, and your own wrath came, and the appointed time for the dead to be judged, and to give [their] reward to your slaves the prophets and to the holy ones and to those fearing your name, the small and the great, and to bring to ruin those ruining the earth.”

re: A Solar Grand Plan

msalganik — Tue, 04 Mar 2008 22:22:31 GMT

photovoltaics are nice but what about solar updraft tower power plants (en.wikipedia.org/.../Solar_updraft_tower) ? I believe there are plants being built currently in Spain that can provide enough power for 500,000 homes. While the plants arent cheap (~450 million per plant) and rather prominent (huge tower with a 3 mile base) they cost nothing to run and can work even on cloudy days since the green house affect they rely on still generate a temparature/pressure deferential. Besides, cost is relative. Build a couple of B2 stealth bombers (1-2 billion per plane) or take a major city off of fossil fuels (for production of electricity...an excess of which can be used to power electric cars...). Solar is a very viable option for getting off of fossil fuels... will it require us to change somethings... sure... but the changes arent as big and not nearly "impossible" as some will have us believe

re: A Solar Grand Plan

ols — Tue, 04 Mar 2008 22:20:39 GMT

hello any one know how to buy nanosolar type solar cells .....I would buy some at .30 cents or even.50 a watt...but how do you get them ...or put an order in for later.....I have emailed nano 6 times and they do not answer.....help......I will $10,000 now but how and when and where.....I need them for my farm and house and business.....as a start....any answers or phone numbers

re: A Solar Grand Plan

ONUG — Tue, 04 Mar 2008 20:03:02 GMT

Normally, I have a great deal of respect for Russ Banchi. But this time, his comments on nuclear power are off base. The fact that none of the other comments address nuclear power attests to the power of the media and their attack on NP. Those of us who are Ron Paul supporters should be able to relate to what the media can do. As an electrical engineer with some training in nuclear, I believe there is no better and safer way to generate large amounts of power. I will address the most frequently heard objection: waste. This is one of the great benefits of NP. Why? Because the amounts are so small. For 30 or so years, we have been debating what to do with nuclear waste. Question: What HAVE we been doing with it since almost 20% of our power is NP? We have simply been storing it ON SITE, waiting for the politicians to make up their minds. That's how small the amount is. The problem then, if there is a problem, is political, not technical. The breeder reactor, for which the technology has existed for decades, would reduce waste by about 90% by recycling the spent fuel rods. The breeder was scrapped by Jimmy Carter with the excuse that he was concerned that terrorists would get hold of it. This is patent nonsense. But, here again, the decision was political, not technological. What about the waste from coal? It is dumped more or less randomly on the open ground. Ten percent of coal waste is spewed into the atmosphere as ash and gasses. And, PER UNIT OF POWER GENERATED, coal waste is MORE radioactive than nuclear waste! It contains a number of radioactive isotopes of radium and thorium plus some others as well. If you want the real story, read "The Health Hazards of NOT Going Nuclear" by the late Petr Beckmann. There is NO argument against NP that Beckmann does not demolish. It is out of print since it was written in 1976, but you can probably find it on line. Beckmann was an exchange scientist from Czechoslovakia. A great read!