Solar is the Solution

Hi,First I will say I built my owned rammed-earth home in 1984. 12" walls, second if we follow the German-model for solar as shown on PBS per Nova this past year you could get a loan from the bank at a set interest rate locked in for 20 years and farm solar, which one farmer turned his fallow field into a $60K profit selling solar to the power plants. People are putting panels on their neighbors homes to get a return! And free electric. I haven't read all the comments, yet. I would like to meet like minded people though. Is there a forum for that? I am new, or a return customer from the early days! It is interesting that in 1980 Gulf Oil ran an ad in Newsweek promoting solar. What happened? To them?

As well as considering how we use our available energy, shouldn't we also consider "when" we use this energy.
Look at any city with its signs, street lights and office towers using power 24 hours per day.
Perhaps it is time for a major paradigm shift; work during the day when the solar power is available and sleep when the sun goes down.

I agree about solar becoming the mainstay of renewable energy. The obvious downside is still the "non" green aspect of solar cell production as well as a still limited production of such panels world wide..a double catch twenty two.

The upside is the quickly advancing technological breakthroughs that seem to be occuring almost monthly if not weekly. Many of these will develop solar power in a way not even imagined or envision just a few years back. The upside to most these are they mostly seem to get "cleaner" all the time as to the total environmental impact to produce.

All in all solar power represents not only a great alternative energy source for the developed worl but even more so for the developing nations around the globe.

Jeff Dahlgren
www.motherearthenergy.com

I thought Steve Heckworth was too severe with Hydorgen (non
hydrocarbon) fuel cells. With increased demand the efficiency and
price will come down. They are the perfect companion to solar
energy by storing, then reccovering electrical energy from the fuel
cells. There is one off-grid home in New Jersey which operates with
this equipment. Both big sites and small could benefit from this
marriage.

To the guy with the ALL CAPS posting (JACKRABBITPATRIOT): You are,
indeed, a Moron of the First Orde (and you can't write standard
English very well). Perpetual motion is a MYTH, and this has been
proven over and over again throughout the centuries. Please stop
writing rubbish such as that which you have subjected us to, pick
up some good text books, and READ them. Thank you very much.

Mr Travis, You are so right about conservation. Our efforts in
conservation make solar a more viable alternative as well. It's not
a magic bullet to incorperate solar power into the reneuable energy
options and conservfation alone won't solve the problem either.
Even if we cut consumption by 30%, fossle fuel consumption will
still produce more CO2 by 20% than all the plants in the world can
remove. And there are disposal issues with the CFL that I hear no
one address, along with regular flourecent lamps, is the murcury
content in those lamps. It's a small amount until you add thousands
together and it becomes significant. Most states allow them to be
disposed of in regular household trash toi go to9 lanfilols or
dumped at seak, not to mention spilled on the ground from dumpsters
where the lamps often get broken. By all means start conservation
tomorrow morning but look for the new problems and put the
alternate energy on the top half of the list as well

My thought is that there is too much searching for the "magic
bullet" There ain't one! What works in Florida or California isn't
likely to work, or work as well, here in northern New York or
Michigan. The only thing the average Joe can do tomorrow is
conservation. Seal a door for 5 bucks, save 10 or more in heat THIS
MONTH. Oh yeah, a couple gallons of oil or a bunch of KW hours as
well. Replace an incandescent light with a CFL..likewise. Now if
everybody did it we're talking Mega.. Which releases money to
insulate..etc etc. Yes, push ahead on solar, bio, nuclear. All have
their place now and in the future; but start with something
tomorrow morning!

Excellent points, demonstrating the high potential of solar energy
compared to all other sources. It also makes it clear that solar
energy is the ultimate solution. Unfortunately, a couple of key
points are mentioned only in an off-hand way. Solar panels are too
expensive to compete with other sources today. And batteries are
too expensive and heavy to make it possible to justify the storage
needed for significant renewable use, especially in transportation.
Then, he seems to imply some conspiracy in blocking solar or
minimizing incentives. Incentives are used heavily, both in the US
and worldwide to promote solar power. Ultimately though, solar will
become a significant part of the solution when they are
economically justified, and only then. That will happen only when
either their prices are significantly reduced by technology or
energy prices rise enough to make solar and batteries economical.
Trying to jawbone, scare, incentivize or regulate the solution just
wastes resources. It will happen when economically justified, and
not before. Energy Guru www.energy-guru.blogspot.com

it all sounds really good. I personally am excited about
alternative forms of energy especially solar. The potential of this
is great. I am truly looking forward to the developments in
batteries to store excess solar energy when not directly used.

I'm an engineer that actually works in the solar industry and there
are problems (and solutions) with solar power. Yes, the cost of
solar is high. Cost of fossil fuel energy is high too. It's just
hidden in our taxes. Consider the recently butchered energy bill as
proof of that. Storage is becoming much less of a problem with more
advanced batteries for PV and countries such as Spain are building
thermal storage into their concentrating "power tower" type plants
that will store energy throughout the night. The sun is hardly
inconsistent in it's production. If it were, we'd all freeze or
boil to death. There are very advanced models of solar insolation
for every part of the globe. Systems designed properly will provide
power when needed, year round. Also consider that solar is very
effective even today as a peak energy demand offset for natural gas
fired plants. This is exactly why CA and the southwest in general
are so big on PV. The statement made about solar power requiring
50% of it's energy production to be made (energy payback of ~15
years) is way off. Typical PV modules are 2-3 years, thin films ~6
months and some CSP is as low as 4 months. Those printed ink
modules mentioned above are from "nanosolar" and have a payback of
ONE month. They're rolling them out this next year. PV is now. All
energy is subsidized, financially and otherwise. Big oil just hides
it from you. Just try to figure in the cost of your child having
asthma to your next gallon of gasoline or a pound of coal. Oh yeah,
and magic perpetual motion doesn't exist, CAPS LOCK GUY.

From the article: > ... it takes the equivalent of 10 barrels of
oil to feed each person in the country.... Feed for how long? A
year? A lifetime?

Selling Renewable Energy (Solar Etc.) Without Incentives In short,
we need to market solar as an investment that will save money while
you own it and return most or all of your investment when you sell
the building it's sitting on. Chances are, as natural gas and oil
prices go up, there will be a corresponding jump in your monthly
electricity bill. So, instead of promoting a solar power system
based on today's savings in electricity, we need to have easily
understandable projections on what the savings will be over the
life of a system. These numbers need to reflect what's really
happening to the cost of energy! Here are some ideas I'd like to
share. First, we need to find a way to make renewable energy
economically competitive without the tax incentives. We do this by
answering the question: "What is the opportunity cost of not using
solar to decrease your energy bill?" There's something interesting
I've found. There's a direct correlation among electrical rates,
the cost of air conditioning a building, the heat index and the
amount of sunshine on any given day. In other words, on the
hottest, sunniest days, we use more electricity that costs more per
kilowatt. So, why do we continue to promote average hours of solar
production, when in fact (at least down here in California), we
produce far more solar power per day during the heat of the summer
when energy costs are highest, than we do in our temperate winter
months when energy costs are lowest. A sound marketing approach
would be to evaluate solar energy in "dollars" of production per
year instead of in kilowatts. I'm sure there are some smart people
out there who can match kilowatts of solar production on any given
day of the year to what the rates will be (based on the projected
costs of electricity). Secondly, we should stop trying to sell a
solar package as a "cost." In real estate, there is a principle
that says anythi

PLEASE STOP WITH THE "SOLAR POWER IS THE ONLY SOLUTION" HYPE!!!
ONLY A BRAINWASHED IDIOT WOULD CONTINUE ON THIS PATH TO SELL THIS
IDEA THAT SOLAR Power IS A SOLUTION... IT IS NOT THE SOLUTION or
even part!! AS ALL THE SOLAR POWER PLANTS IN THE WORLD COMBINED
DONT GENERATE WHAT TWO COAL POWERED POWER PLANTS GENERATE. AND WHEN
THE SUN GOES DOWN IT STOPS GENERATING POWER...REAL DUMB. PLEASE
LOOK AT THE REAL SOLUTION...IT IS ON THE INTERNET AND IT IS CALLED
THE "AIR TURBINE ENGINE" OR "THE CRYSTAL ION ENGINE".....AND IT
RUNS ON AIR!!! IT RUNS ALL DAY!!! IT RUNS ALL NIGHT!! IT IS CLEAN
ENERGY THAT THE US DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY HAS REJECTED!! SEE THE
WEBSITE. LOOK AT THE ENGINE AND TECHNOLOGY THAT DR BOB AND RON
ROCKWELL WENT TO WASHINGTON WITH AND JUST GOT REFUSED AND REJECTED.
THE DEVELOPERS OF THE AIR TURBINE ENGINE WAS GIVEN THE "SORRY WE
CANT HELP" AND PLEASE GET BEHIND SOLAR, CORN FOR METHANOL AND
THERMAL ELECTRIC AND' PROJECTS, THEN... THE AIR TURBINE ENGINE
"MIGHT" BE CONSIDERED. I WROTE HILLARY, I WROTE OBAMA, I WROTE TO
THEM AND SAID HERE IT IS....A SOLUTION TO OUR DEPENDANCE ON
OIL...LETS TALK ABOUT IT. NO ONE WILL TALK. PLEASE STOP THE
'DISINFORMATION' BY ALL THESE PEOPLE AND BY THE MEDIA... IF WE MADE
THESE ENGINES SMALL, MEDIUM AND LARGE ALL ACROSS THE COUNTRY OUR
SOLUTION TO THE DEPENDANCE ON FOREIGN OIL COULD BE ENDED NOW. OUR
SOLUTION IS HERE AND COULD BE IMPLEMENTED NATIONWIDE IN LESS THAN
TEN YEARS. BUT "BIG OIL" AND "GOVERNMENT" DONT WANT THIS SOLUTION
CAUSE THEY CANT YET "CONTROL" IT....what bull. I THOUGHT THAT THE
OBJECT OF THE GAME WAS TO CEASE OUR DEPENDANCE ON OIL. WELL IS IT
OR NOT? IT MOST CERTAINLY IS ONLY LIP SERVICE.. NOW WE THE PEOPLE
MUST... TELL THE PEOPLE THE TRUTH AND STOP THE LYING ABOUT NO
SOLUTION. YOU HAVE THE SOLUTION GIVEN TO YOU TODAY. YOU HAVE THE
MEANS...GIVEN TO YOU TODAY... SO WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO? HOW
AB

I agree with the author of the article that eventually we will
switch over to using solar as our primary source of energy. Yes
fusion would be great, and anuclionic fusion would be the best, but
so far the technology isn't ready for the market. We can keep doing
research to that end, but in the mean time, we can concentrate on
what works in the present, and given the nature of Mother Earth
magazine, it's what works for the individual. I don't see anyone
looking at installing a backyard coal burning plant, nuclear plant,
or other types of generators. All the traditional "fossil fuel"
type technologies are structured in such a way to keep people tied
into a dependent type of relationship, to which Mother Earth
magazine's philosophy strives to break. As for the energy payback
for PV, it returns 7 times the energy ( 2007, Home Power magazine).
If it comes down to a choice between more of the same ( coal,
natural gas, nuclear fission, empowerment of dictitoral governments
through petro dollars, mercury poison from coal, continued energy
inefficiency) or (distributed local solar electric, hotwater,
passive design, efficient design, and local autonomy), I will take
the latter. And the thing to remember is the Hubbard Peak. Sooner
or later, the geologic supply of fossil materials will run out.
C.K. Geologist

why are we not developing more green geothermal powerplants? the
american west has some of the best potenial sites in all the world.
also clean coal technology & oil shale's time has come. the usa
has 40% of the world's coal & 60% of the world's prooven
reserves of shale oil. it's time to tell opec where to go. i'd
glady pay a premium price for a chevy volt when it becomes
available. that is, unless the oil companies axe it.

where are those cheap ink jet printed non silicon based flexible
solar panels that are supposed to change our lives? i'm still
waiting. how much longer are the oil companies going to fleece us?
also, how come we never hear anymore about the vw three cylinder
tourbocharged clean burn diesel hybrid that gets 100 mpg. who's
blocking consumer choices. can can someone please answer.

Heckeroth speaks of a time when radioactive materials were
sequestered and dispersed deep under the Earth’s surface, but that
was long before the advent of life. They have risen, so that more
than half of all the uranium in the Earth is in the upper reaches
of the continents. Like the red in a red-skinned apple, if that
skin were 29 percent pigmented (land) and 71 percent not (ocean).
The upper reaches include the top centimetre. It contains as much
fissionable uranium as do the mines to which Heckeroth credits a
1.5 million terawatt-hour "recoverable world reserve". The sunlight
that strikes the Earth in 1.5 days is, by my reckoning, 6.3 million
TWh, not 1.5 million, so it's more like top four centimetres'
uranium equivalent. But if he's looking at solar's potential, it's
not fair to compare that to uranium mines' actuality. The rate of
increase of economically demonstrated uranium reserves in Australia
this year has been 740 tonnes per day. By comparison, the whole
world's oil burn rate is a little over 825
uranium-tonne-equivalents per day.

There is no doubt that coal and nuclear are the big boys when it
comes to electrical production in the U.S.. Renewables,
comparitively, are currently a drop in the bucket. However, the
rate at which renewables are growing is phenomenal. Thin film solar
may become ubiquitous. Solar thermal can generate electricity even
at night. Costs will continue to come down while efficiencies will
continue to improve. Wind is already becoming competitive and other
technologies such as wave are emerging. To use a poor pun, we
haven't even seen the tip of the iceberg. People looking at current
electrical production think it must be either coal or nuclear. No
one who made the first computers envisioned the internet. if you
asked them or anyone else what computers would be able to do you
would not have gotten an answer that would have predicted even 1%
what they are currently doing. Coal is too dirty to keep using. Not
just the carbon but also its other pollutants.Nuclear has far too
manty safety issues. Transportation of waste, de-commisioning of
plants, terrorist' targets, other countries starting nuclear power
programs in order to hide their bomb making intentions, not to
mention accidents, employees who go crazy etc. 93% of our current R
and D budget goes to coal and nuclear. Billions are spent on
protecting oil reserves. Dictators run countries not needing their
own peoples support only needing money from selling oil and the
U.S. corporations and government backing them. Oil companies
receive a wide variety of tax incentives and subsidies from the
government. politicians receive very large donations from oil
companies. Tax payers receive high energy costs. We can change the
world. Don't believe those who say fossil fuels, coal, and nuclear
are our only hope. They have been in the past. The future is up to
us.

I find it interesting that the author completely ignored wave
energy. It's already commercially available and being used,
especially by the big Spanish utility, Iberdrola S.A. It's a far
denser energy source and less visually dominating than wind since
the bouys are out to sea and most of it is below water, and it's
cheaper than solar. The leading manufacturer claims that one 10 sq.
mi. grid of their bouys off the coast would supply the entire power
needs of the whole state of California. Why did he ignore something
like this? It's true, this isn't a solution for individual home
owners and solar is. Nevertheless, I've investigated a solar PV
installation for my own use. The payback period is over 40 years at
current rates. That's way longer than the warranty on the panels!
No matter how environmentally inclined one is, that's a pretty
steep hurdle for all except the wealthy, so the author seems to be
ignoring reality. In fact, he seems to me to have allowed his
employment biases to intrude on his objectivity.

Did some one say "Three Mile Island" OOps. Accidents happen. Ever
heard of a solar panel exploding or melting down? Oh and was there
something you had planned for your roof? Nice patch of grass would
look nice up there but OOps, thats green too.

Their is one serious flaw to going solar, it requires over half the
energy to manufacture solar panels that they will ever produce in
their lifetime of generating electricity. Secondly a much better
storage method for energy generated must be created. We do not have
the convenience of needing electricity only when the sun is
shining. A large amount of electricity is used in the winter and at
night during the winter. If all energy in the world were generated
via solar then we need a very good battery to store the energy in
peak production for use in non peak periods. It would be nice for
all solar but is but a dream for now and anyone thinking they are
saving large amounts of energy by using them are fools. Secondly to
use them to stop green house gas emission you return to the
manufacturing energy and material. Your great warm feeling of I'm
saving the environment goes way down when you factor all this in.
Their is no such thing as a free lunch and it is hight time that
real science goes into these articles and remove the
environmentalist propaganda. Secondly where do you think all fossil
fuels derived their energy? Oil is nothing but stored
photosynthetic energy generated when sunlight struck chlorophyl in
plants millions of years ago, the same goes for coal. Our best
options are as you put it with conservation.

CHERNOBYL, huh? Trying to compare US reactor designs to the poorly
designed Soviet reactors is like crying out HINDENBERG every time
you see a blimp. There's a huge difference between the two, and if
we're going to make energy policy decisions based on fear, then we
might as well go ahead and get used to being in the dark and cold.
If, on the other hand, we're willing to make decisions based on
logic and rationality, then there's no reason to suspect that the
engineering advances we've made in the last 50 years don't make
today's blimps safer than the Hindenberg and modern reactor designs
FAR safer than the flawed Soviet ones. Even 103 sixties-era light
water reactor that provide 20% of the US electricity today are far
more advanced than Chernobyl. Please, spare us the "sky is falling"
rhetoric and tell me exactly how you plan to shut down all fossil
fuel and nuclear plants, replacing 90% of the country's generating
capacity, AND meet future demands that will inevitably materialize
as we move towards plug-in electric hybrids for transportation?

Please note that the advancement in solar cell performance is
increasing very quickly. University of Del. has achieved 42%
conversion. They are striving for 50% and 55% for selected panel
performance. The current production solar panels run in the order
of 12 to 20% for selected panels. This research work will more than
double current output. This is brilliant work. The helicial wind
generators have the best performance with very little noise and are
not bothered by wind direction. The MAGLEV wind generators will
also increase the output and decrease noise levels. Geothermal
production plants HAVE to be increased in size and dispersion
across the selected thermal zones. These 3 areas (of energy
production) are our best quick solution to reduce energy imports
and all that goes with these costs.

For anyone who believes that nuclear is an acceptable alternative
to fossil fuels , I only have one word for you : CHERNOBYL If you
don't think that an accident such as Chernobyl can happen here in
the US or anywhere else , I don't think you are living in the real
world. No matter how many precautions are taken , humans will
always make mistakes. And computer back ups are only as good as the
humans who use them . Or the humans who designed them.No. Nuclear
is not an acceptable alternative to fossil fuels. It's just to
dangerous.

Mr. Jackson, Fusion power does not involve the use of fissionable
materials such as uranium. Instead, it involves using Hydrogen
isotopes such as Deuterium and tritium, or possible helium-3, to
combine 2 or more atoms into a larger atom. This creates energy,
and significantly less radioactive waste, than fission. Solar
power, based on earth, is limited to the surface area we can use to
collect it. By its nature, terrestrial solar will not allow
agriculture underneath it, unless mushroom farming. Space based
solar power is one alternative; but considering the probable
maintenance nightmare of orbital machinery (see the ISS and the
trouble they are having there), we are proably better off
developing centralized, maintainable fusion power.

I live in a grid tied solar home. A big point is solar doesn't
require any water like coal, nuclear and natural gas. Solar makes
the most during the peak time of use. My system is only 2.4 kw and
makes more than I need over half the year. I also donate to my
utility to buy 800 kwh of renewable energy and doen't even use it
most of the year. I'm over 200% green btween my solar system and
renewable donation. Why don't more people at least buy 1 block of
renewable energy from their utility and start to make a difference

Solar may be just as afordable as your utility bill soon. One
company is planning to install a complete solar system on
residential homes and the customers pays only a small deposit of
$500-$1000. Once in place, it will generate clean renewable
electricity and replace most of the dirty electricitly. This will
cause a drop in the utility bill. This saving will, in most cases,
pay for the "rent" fee charged by the company> Imagine, clean
renewable electricity for the same price or less than the dorty
electricity that we use today. Better yet, the "rent" fee is lock
in. Since utility prices increase on a regular basis, the systems
can save money. All with no up front charges. I have written many
articles on the company in my blog at www.solarjoules.com. Or you
can visit www.jointhesolution.com/razmataz if you want to view the
companies website information.

Solar could be even less expensive than it is now, if this
technology gets off the ground
http://www.popsci.com/popsci/flat/bown/2007/green/item_59.html

Nuclear and solar aren't in competition. They BOTH offset
fossil-fuel generated energy. And last time I checked, nuclear
FUSION had nothing to do with Uranium. Uranium is used in FISSION
reactors, and there's enough of it left for well over 100 years -
even without recycling and reprocessing. It would be sad indeed, if
we couldn't find something better than nuclear fission power in 100
years, but today nuclear generates 74% of the carbon-free energy in
the US making it the most valuable player in the fight against
global warming. If you think that it's possible to deal with global
warming AND replace the fossil fuels in use today AND meet the
future energy needs, without nuclear energy, then we are indeed
hopeless.

The use of solar energy is like a snowball rolling downhill. Like
the snowball, solar energy needs that initial push. The Federal
government has provided incentives, tax breaks, grants etc, etc for
most new technologies including coal, nuclear, oil and gas. However
it has done very little for solar of any significance. States have
tried to go it alone but for a massive rollout the Federal
government needs to scale up their assistance. The current energy
bill is bogged down in Congress and the alternative energy sections
may be eliminated. We need to pressure our representatives to stop
listening to lobbyists and get this country energy independent.
Countries such as Germany and Spain are already moving ahead on
solar. The amount of money spent on one aircraft carrier would do
wonders for solar energy, this country and the planet. Like the
snowball we need a good push from the voters. Contact your
representative now and voice your opinion. They need to know what
you think.

Mr. Stuart considers nuclear fusion as a "truly inexhaustible
energy source"? Does that mean there are infinite supplies of
uranium to fuel these nuclear power plants? What about the waste?
And what about the possibility of a meltdown? No amount of
nay-saying and truth-twisting will make me believe that we are
incapable of developing solar power to the point that we could
completely replace every fossil-fuel burning power plant in the
world within 20 years or less, especially considering the fact that
the energy that reaches earth from sunlight in one hour is more
than that used by all human activities in one year. If you have
read the latest U.N. report on global warming, you'll see that we
really don't have a choice. We need to act now. This quote from
Albert Einstein sums it up nicely: "The significant problems we
face cannot be solved at the same level of thinking we were at when
we created them." Solar power is really the only way to go. We have
the technology. All we need now is the will.

I appreciate the public's growing acceptance of electric
propulsion. I have been publicly advocating for battery electric
vehicles (EVs) for almost eight years, ever since renting a GM EV1
for a visit to Los Angeles in early 2000. Mitsubishi will begin
selling its iMiEV in 2009; soon after, Subaru, Renault and perhaps
even GM will join the dozen small makers that will be offering
highway-capable EVs by 2010. Photovoltaics continue to increase in
efficiency and drop in price, but even without solar recharging,
EVs will reduce air pollution by 95%, compared to
internal-combustion engine vehicles. See EVWorld.com for more
information on oil-free, zero-emission EVs.

We have the technology to establish lunar colonies. Why don't we
have them? Expense. Just because we have a technology doesn't make
it practical to do it. And if we ignore that very important fact,
then the people who will be hurt the most are the ones that are
least able to afford it - the elderly, poor, and infirm. The
biggest solar project on earth - a 350 Megawatt CSP station in
California - has been in battle with the economics of running it
ever since it was created. And although that solar project
represents 95% of the WORLD's solar capacity, it is not even a drop
in the bucket compared to what you are describing. The next largest
solar project is a miniscule 11 Megawatt "power tower" in Spain.
Neither of these can hold a candle to a modern 1600 Megawatt
nuclear facility, which is reliable 24 hours a day, 365 days a
year. But let's just assume for a moment that we plan on taking a
technology that is expensive and unreliable (there's only about 6
hours worth of useful sunlight each day) and try to scale it from
less than two-tenths of one percent of our electricity production
and make it our predominant form of electricity production. It's
just inconcievable. Solar is, at best, a way to reduce our
dependence on fossil fuels, but it will be half a century or more
before it is ready to play a major role in replacing conventional
energy sources. Instead of getting everyone's hopes pinned on a pie
in the sky, we should instead pursue a combination of wind, solar,
hydro, geothermal, and nuclear energy until we get there, and
invest in developing a truly inexhaustible energy source that is
not dependent on the wind blowing or sun shining, such as nuclear
fusion.