BP Solar ditches thin film solar cells. Minor drawback: They don't work very well.

[NNadir]

Let's be clear. The anti-nuke cults asking us to gamble the very own flesh, and that of our children, our lovers, our mothers, our fathers, and our friends on their empty promises extending back now more than 50 years.

For the six years I've been here, I've been hearing all about how solar energy will save us, and in that time more than 150 billion tons of dangerous fossil fuel waste have been dumped into the atmosphere along with huge quantities of toxic organics and heavy metals.

One of the big song and dance routines that's been going on here for year after year after year after year in the "solar will save us" faith is the "thin films are the mostest bestiest solarificalacious hope of mankind" rhetoric.

Thin films have never, not once in history, produced 0.1 exajoules of the 500 exajoules now used by humanity in a single year. Now it appears, for all the happy talk, it will never do so.

Thin-film photovoltaics—with micrometer-thin semiconductor coatings on glass or metal that convert sunlight into electricity—have been poised to revolutionize solar energy for two decades. They require much less material per unit electricity yielded than conventional photovoltaics made from semiconductor-grade crystalline silicon wafers, and are also far simpler to produce.

But in November that vision of thin films soon displacing crystalline photovoltaics blew a fuse. One of the world's largest producers of photovoltaic solar cells, BP Solar (Lithicum, Md.), abruptly announced plans to cease production at plants making thin-film cells from amorphous silicon (a-Si) and cadmium telluride (CdTe). The CdTe composite is a leading contender for next-generation thin-film photovoltaics, though its toxicity is a serious drawback, and a-Si is the most commercially advanced thin-film material. Overnight, all mention of thin-film technology vanished from BP Solar's Web site, erased even from the corporate history page that had proudly chronicled two decades of research and development...

Bold and italics are mine.

Um, two decades...

It seems longer than that, but only because every post by the "solar will save us" anti-nuke faith is tedious beyond belief.

Toxic?

You're kidding? Personally I have experienced an avalanche of opprobrium from complete morons for pointing out that obvious fact.

It seems that BP which calls itself "Beyond Petroleum," even though it is responsible for leaking oil all over the Alaskan tundra, and of course the dangerous fossil fuel accident at Texas City which injured 100 and killed 15 people - with no interest from the anti-nuke community whatsoever - has shaken the faith quite a bit.

Let's hear from Larry Kazmerski, who directs the solar research program at NREL. (By the way, I have great respect for Dr. Kazmerski who is not a fundie anti-nuke. Like the founder of NREL, Alvin Weinberg, inventor of the pressurized water reactor and the molten salt reactor - Dr. Kazmerski has been a supporter of nuclear energy.)

"You can't say this is good news. This is a blow to thin films," says Larry Kazmerski, who runs the solar program at the U.S. Department of Energy's National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL, Golden, Colo.). The lab has been spending US $50 million each year helping manufacturers, including BP Solar and the Royal Dutch/Shell Group subsidiary Shell Solar (Amsterdam), scale up production of thin-film modules.

You can't talk solar without "percent talk," so let's do some, even though the article makes a realistic point (which I have put in bold) that is missing from 99% of the deliberately misleading happy talk posted here.

The announcement has been all the more shocking because the overall outlook for the photovoltaics industry has seemed to be brightening markedly. Sales of photovoltaic modules grew by 34 percent in 2001, and healthy growth was expected last year, too—15-;20 percent was the projection from the research firm Strategies Unlimited (Mountain View, Calif.). Increasingly, the modules are powering not just remote villages and road signs, but homes and businesses connected to the power grid in bustling economies.

Yet growth was from a microscopic base.

In other words, 100% of next to zero is usually still next to zero, as in 0.080 exajoules in 2007.

http://www.fairley.ca/energy_files/Spectrum%20BP%20Solar.htm

Another "solar will save us" technology that gets a lot of hype around here is the organic solar cell or "spray on," or "paint on" solar cells. When some investor makes a dubious announcement about his super duper system, it generates far more posts on the internet than MJ of energy.

Now we have a claim from 20 solar researchers that organic solar cells are misleading, apparently deliberately so. The news article is here: Solar Power Technology Claims Misleading

new type of solar cell has recently gained attention as a possible cost-effective way to turn sunlight into electricity. Made from organic materials, the cells are cheaper and more flexible than currently used silicon-based solar cells.

But new information suggests organic solar cells may not work as well as advertised.

"There is a lot of press about breakthroughs that are basically unsubstantiated," said Keith Emery of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory in Golden, Colo.

In the November issue of Materials Today, an international review magazine, Emery and 20 other experts have signed a letter asking for more restraint in organic solar cell publicity. They think claims of "world record" performance must be independently verified.

Such independent evaluation is customary practice for all other solar cells, said Emery, who has done this sort of testing for 27 years.

"I have no interest in one solar cell technology over another," he told LiveScience. "But there needs to be a level playing field."

The original letter to Materials Today can be found for free on line, even if the journal is an Elsevier journal.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=MImg&_imagekey=B6X1J-4PWDT21-12-3&_cdi=7244&_user=10&_orig=search&_coverDate=11%2F30%2F2007&_sk=999899988&view=c&wchp=dGLzVlz-zSkWW&md5=c79ea57b95b92abfd187964f38fa4fb3&ie=/sdarticle.pdf">The Value of the Values

The article is signed by twenty solar researchers. A list with their affiliations is here:

Signed by T. Ameri*, P. Denk*, H.-J. Egelhaaf*,
K. Forberich*, M. Koppe*, M. Morana*, M. C.
Scharber*, C. Waldauf*, Konarka Austria GmbH,
Austria; B. de Boer, University of Groningen, The
Netherlands; K. Emery, G. Rumbles, National
Renewable Energy Laboratory, USA; J. M. Kroon,
Solar Energy – Energy Research Center of the
Netherlands, The Netherlands; G. G. Malliaras,
Cornell University, USA; M. D. McGehee, Stanford
University, USA; J. Nelson, Imperial College,
London, UK; M. Niggemann, Fraunhofer Institute
for Solar Energy Systems, Germany; M. Pfeiffer,
Heliatek GmbH, Germany; M. K. Riede, Institut
für Angewandte Photophysik, Germany; S. E.
Shaheen, University of Colorado, Denver, USA;
M. Wienk, University of Technology, Eindhoven,
The Netherlands.

So here we are, 2008, and it turns out that the twenty years of talk has left us where we were before. I note, with contempt, that in this twenty years, a bunch of wishful thinkers were working as hard as they can - using vicious distortions - to vandalize and destroy the world's largest, by far form of climate change gas free energy.

And people ask why I'm so angry?

IGNORANCE KILLS. IT KILLS. IT KILLS.

[kristopher]

1. So let's get this straight.

An OIL company decides to stop research on an alternative to oil (Electric Vehicles) and you seem to feel that is a proof that solar is a failure rather than an indication that solar may be a threat to petroleum?

Either way, your post is a red herring. The cost of production relative to output is the issue with thin film, and as far as deploying solar goes the cost of production relative to output is better addressed by strong governmental encouragement for building a manufacturing base to bring the benefits of mass production to the pricing of existing, proven solar technologies.

3 modes: False logic, insults, false statements.

[NNadir]

4. I won't get this straight because it will be met with innuendo and denial.

It is hardly surprising that you are unable to gather the institutions that signed the letter in Materials Today. article.

The general tactic of the "Solar will save us" cult is to cast irrelevant aspersions on the motivations of anyone who points out a reality that flies in the face of their dogma.

The "solar will save us" crowd, as always, wants to have it two ways. When energy companies invest in solar - and BP is one of the world's largest solar companies - they announce this as being evidence that solar is great. When the same companies, after serious effort, fail to produce the product, the "solar will save us" crowd begins complaining about vague conspiracies.

We'll just leave aside the whole question of whether solar PV electricity has a damn thing to do with oil. It doesn't, but no matter...

The fact remains that either way, neither dangerous fossil fuel companies working in solar nor exclusive solar companies have produced an exajoule of energy from any solar technology, not one. This is 2008. The crisis is NOW, not in some fantasy future in 2025, or 2050, or 2075.

Now!

Got it?

No?

Well then...

The poor thinking of the anti-nuke portion of the "solar will save us" crowd is legion. Let's look at it.

First of all, an original post is by definition, not a red herring. The topic, raised all the time anti-nukes is that "solar is ready to replace the world's largest, by far, form of climate change gas free energy." These reports and commentaries refer to primary researchers in the solar field.

It is very clear from thousands of posts on this website that the "solar will save us" anti-nuke clique has been talking and talking and talking and talking and talking about how wonderful and ready solar thin film technology is.

Secondly, you seem not to grasp at all the contents of the original posts or links. To wit:

The lab has been spending US $50 million each year helping manufacturers, including BP Solar and the Royal Dutch/Shell Group subsidiary Shell Solar (Amsterdam), scale up production of thin-film modules.

Obviously a decent sized subsidy has be applied to do the exact thing you claim, obliviously:

The cost of production relative to output is the issue with thin film, and as far as deploying solar goes the cost of production relative to output is better addressed by strong governmental encouragement for building a manufacturing base to bring the benefits of mass production to the pricing of existing, proven solar technologies...

Very clearly this subsidy has produced zero. Now you come back here insisting that there are no subsidies and there should be more.

Well it seems that this particular subsidy was wasted, doesn't it?

I'm not going leave aside for a moment the question of whether there are any "proved" solar technologies. My definition of "proved" means that in 2008, the technology exists on an exajoule per year scale. This is because the emergency is NOW.

Now mind you. I have no problem with funding the NREL for research, just as I believe the Princeton Plasma Physics lab, where they are engaged in fusion energy research, in which I have very little faith, should be funded.

What I am getting at however is that you are here trying to vandalize the existing exajoule scale form of climate change gas free energy that is scalable, mature, well understood, extremely safe compared to any other exajoule scale form of energy - climate change gas free or otherwise - because of irrational "what if" scenarios.

What if the world buys into your espousal of a bright solar future and your predictions prove exactly as worthless as the same predictions made by the fundamentalist anti-nuke Amory Lovins 30 years ago?

What insight do you bring that shows that you are not merely repeating 30 year rhetoric?

If you have produced any, I have not seen it.

The anti-nuke community, being dogma based, characterizes all criticism as "insulting." They whine about "red herrings" but in more than 10 posts here, I will say that I have found the majority of their responses to my remarks have ignored - ignored, got it? ignored - the facts in the post by attempting to make the point about my personality.

Let's be clear. I am not a nice man. I have never been a nice man. I get extremely angry with people who espouse ignorance, and in so doing, work to perpetuate the killing that is occurring constantly, without a moment's respite, because of dangerous fossil fuels.

But my personality has nothing to do with the fact that twenty solar researchers have signed an open letter characterizing the work of commercial solar companies of the type the "solar will save us" community here applauds so loudly as "misleading."

I didn't write the letter. They did.

Now, you can whine all you want about me. I couldn't care less. I don't like you. I have never misrepresented myself on this score.

You see my icon? That's Frederick Douglass. The ignorance of his time involved declaring a subset of human beings to be inferior so as to justify their treatment farm animals. Let me tell you something: Frederick Douglas was hardly nice and civil to his opponents. On the contrary, he was aggressive, rude, confrontational and dismissive. Speaking only for myself, I find his rage appropriate. By forcing the issue, he probably saved a lot of lives that until his actions were hardly worth living.

I have zero respect for any member of the anti-nuke cult, and I find 98% of their posts to be misinformed, misleading, and outright fraudulent. The other 2% represent accidentally stumbling on some kind of truth, but it's so rare as to make up for the highly immoral hand-waving and denial that the rest of their questionable rhetoric - not much of which is particularly gracious - represents.

Solar thin films are clearly a commercial failure in 2008. You argue that more time and money is needed.

It never occurs to you apparently, in your little yuppie bubble, that time and money are in short supply.

[kristopher]

7. It isn't a 'vague conspiracy'.

It is a well documented fact. You rail against inaction and apathy towards global warming by the general public and then exonerate the cretins responsible for creating the belief in the public consciousness that there exists doubt about the need for action. (Jacques, 2006) (Jacques etal, 2008) (Oreskes, 206) (Oreskes, 2008) (Shulman etal, 2007) (Lakoff, 2005)(Lakoff, 2006)

Witness the current move to increase drilling for oil. What prompts such a move? Desperation on the part of consumers due to high prices provides the political cover; the lure of profits from high prices attracts investment from non-petroleum pools of capital; and the cultivated ignorance on the part of the public makes them unable to properly assess the long term costs.

The elements needed to accomplish the above are under the control of US petroleum and other fossil fuel interests: large amounts of capital to game the system on prices; over-representation of money in the political system to prevent oversight; and a coordinated mechanism (conservative think tanks, talk radio, and corporate control of media) for the creation and dissemination of their message.

A good example of how this control interferes with the development of a fledgling industry can be seen by looking at the effect of doubts about the renewal of the Production Tax Credit for alternatives.

IF the areas of wind and solar had enjoyed the same consistent support that nuclear has over the past 30 years, there is no reason to think that its market penetration would not now greatly exceed that of nuclear. Especially if that steady support were coupled to the 160 BILLION in support that nuclear has received.

Note that with that type of support devoted to manufacturing and deployment of the existing technologies, the wind and solar industries would now be performing without subsidies.

When do you suppose nuclear will be able to make that claim? It has had all the alternative energy source money, it has had all the political support. WHY IS IT THAT EVEN NOW IT ISN'T PROFITABLE ENOUGH TO ATTRACT INVESTMENT OR TO BE ABLE TO EXIST WITHOUT GOVERNMENT GUARANTEES OF LIABILITY PROTECTION?

Widespread deployment of nuclear energy is just what the Republicans want. Why is that, do you suppose? Why do free market idealists keep up a drumbeat of support for a technology that has as many if not more long term drawbacks as fossil fuels if it is deployed in the scale to replace fossil fuels?

This is a typical sales and marketing strategy: First eliminate consideration of real, viable alternatives to your product, then offer the customer two options - the one you want them to take (fossil fuels) and a similar but less attractive option that you know they will reject.

Thanks for playing their hand for them.

[msongs]

2. We are grateful you are gonna build a nuke energy plant in your backyard for us nt

[NNadir]

5. I would have absolutely no objection to that happening.

You got a big solar cell manufacturing plant in your backyard by the way?

If someone tried to build one, would your community support it?

Do you think they'll be alarms if one of the underground halocarbon tanks leak?

Couldn't care less?

Why am I not surprised?

[Zachstar]

8. You paying for it?

Why am I not surprised?

[bhikkhu]

3. I'd wait to see what happens with Nanosolar

http://www.nanosolar.com/

They are supposed to be in heavy production this year, and could be very good news. While the OP is good information, it's not too long to wait to see if a rival has a workable method.

This does recall the fuel-cell promise of 2001, however, when "by the end of the year" economical and reliable fuel cells were supposed to be on the market for both household and vehicle use. Still waiting...

[cloudythescribbler]

6. Several bones to pick w/the OP and its reasoning

First, this is a case of ONE company giving up on ITS project for ONE KIND of solar voltaic. I understand that, eg, there are other huge projects of some sort being pursued in eg Portugal, and by Algeria. I am no technology expert, but it sounds too much like this OP has an anti-solar bug up his ass from hearing "20 years" (I'm older and have heard the Lovins brothers now for over 30 years) of optimism that hasn't yet paid off.

BTW, I remember canvassing in the SEVENTIES door to door (as a -- minimally -- paid canvasser for Massachusetts Fair Share) on a proposal to retrofit public buildings w/solar THERMAL that would save the state money w THEN-EXISTENT technology. There are various forms of specifically solar VOLTAIC energy that are currently in use and are competitive, at least in certain contexts. And the technology continues to advance.

We also know that wind power is economical, and that solar AND wind could be used to power a process of extracting hydrogen from sea-water (although expensive), and that such hydrogen in salt form could be easily and safely transported and used at any time, not just when the sun shines or when the wind blows.

Again, when in the past something has been seen as necessary, it has been pursued, even when NOT technologically feasible, as with nuclear energy (which there still is no safe way to store the wastes from, plus a myriad of other problems, and the supposedly safer NEW designs are even MORE vulnerable to terrorism), and the instance of Star Wars. Yet on the area of alternative energy, nothing similar from the US or any other major country pursuing it massively.

[diane in sf]

9. Thank you--one nitpick--Amory Lovins, and his ex-wife Hunter--no Lovins bros

as far as I know

[NNadir]

10. Let's be clear: The Lovins are paid (off) apologists for dangerous fossil fuels.

Hunter and Amory are divorced - and the biggest fish probably in their divorce settlement is which "natural" capitalist gets the contract for greenwashing Royal Dutch Shell, and which gets the contract for greenwashing Conoco, and which gets the contract for greenwashing Rio Tinto.

Amory has clearly got the rights to greenwashing Walmart in his settlement.

The solar talk - which is for rich people and about rich people, particularly those interested in greenwashing their personal guilt - is just another scheme to give tax breaks to those who least need it.

I don't have a problem with people buying solar stuff - it's very expensive, though, and it is NOT an efficient tool for addressing the critical issues of poverty or the immediate crisis of dangerous fossil fuel waste, dangerous fossil fuel water pollution, dangerous fossil fuel land pollution, dangerous fossil fuel air pollution, dangerous fossil fuel terrorism, dangerous fossil fuel depletion or dangerous fossil fuel costs.

Solar energy is, in fact, nothing more than a scheme to provide people with an avenue for denial.

It is not now, never has been, and almost certainly never will be an exajoule scale form of energy.

You say you canvassed in the 1970's. It's thirty years later - and for all thirty years the "solar will save us" squad has been cheering loudly for solar energy - while, in many cases, attempting to destroy and vandalize the world's largest, by far, form of climate change gas free primary energy. Doesn't this suggest there is a problem with solar energy?

The 2007 figures are in: http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/alternate/page/renew_energy_consump/table1.html

If you must know, I came to this website six years ago with the view that solar energy was great. Because of my pro-nuclear stance, however, I was compelled - in order to make my case - to exhaustively examine the life cycle analysis literature on all forms of energy. The best we can say about solar is that it's probably not as dangerous as dangerous natural gas - but that's not saying much at all. Moreover the external cost of solar energy - which is very much like the waste profile of other forms of electronic waste - are hidden precisely because it has consistently failed to yield significant energy.

The more I look, the more I am convinced that criticizing solar is considered blashemy because the ONLY justification for faith in it is, in fact, religious.

It does NOT stand up to scrutiny using critical thinking skills.

Again, I couldn't care less what rich people do with their money. But to demand huge subsidies in a time of growing poverty for systems that don't work on a scale to even dream of providing for six and a half billion people, is a morally dubious question.

[kristopher]

11. Oh, come on now.

"It does NOT stand up to scrutiny using critical thinking skills."

Your ability to "think critically" is well demonstrated to all; and it doesn't inspire confident in your ability to make this assessment...

[NNadir]

13. It doesn't inspire YOUR confidence.

I would, in fact, be concerned, if YOU had confidence in my critical thinking skills. Since you don't, I'm doubly pleased.

I of course, have no repsect for you at all. Basically you make stuff up to validate yuppie denial. You're very Lovins like, since you continuously substitute wishful thinking for reality.

[madokie]

12. So it would appear from wading through these diatribes of yours that your rub is with the fact that

Amory Lovins is being paid whereas you are not. imagine that :rofl::evilgrin:
Anyways, have a great day, I am

[NNadir]

14. It would appear that I have an ethical problem with people selling snake oil in the face of

catastrophe.

I have been long aware of the fact that the entire anti-nuke cult finds 400 ppm of dangerous fossil fuel waste, carbon dioxide, in the atmosphere a matter for giggling.

The fact is - absent any insight, absent any moral underpinnings, absent any critical thinking skills, their entire shtick consists of posting smiley faces on the internet.

The world baseline death rate from air pollution is about 2.2 million per year - while you're giggling to yourself, oblivious of the failure of your fantasy scheme to run your car on yuppie solar cells.

A recent publication in Geophysical Letters, noting this base line, indicates that this rate will increase with temperature increases.

http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/CO2PapGRL1207.pdf

It is no surprise of course that you are giggling about it, posting funny faces and what not. You are indifferent to your lack of knowledge and insight and quite proud of it in fact.

I note that the number of people who died in the entire history of commercial nuclear power - 50 years of it - is not even 0.1% of the people who died last year from air pollution while you were giggling and not caring less.

Heckuva job fundie. Heckuva job. You must be very proud of yourself.

[madokie]

16. Those little smilies faces are working on you aren't they?

sticks and stones and all that but smilies are :scared:
:rofl:
nnadir it would have been a little easier to read your spiels if only you could understand some of the basics of communications. Calling me or others names only ensures that I will not take anything you write seriously, an intelligent person does not have too nor will they likely engage in such juvenile behavior. Leave your trash shit talk at the door and talk to me about why I should be not concerned with the radioactive waste in all phases of nuclear power production and what to do with it. I dare you :-)
Peace

[diane in sf]

17. Those spiels look like monkeys hurling poo through their cage bars to me.

[madokie]

18. not to mention the smell, huh

seriously though I've read about all the "fundies" and who is one I care to read, all I want to read at this point is an explanation to what I've always had a problem with and that is the very dangerous nuclear waste and what to do with it, safely. I guess by talking shit he and/or others feel they don't have to address that little aspect. I've gotten past where it pisses me off now I read it for the absurdity of it all.

I wonder if the pro nuke folks must believe in armegeddon and the second coming because they seem to be not concerned with all that waste. I guess when jebus comes it won't matter anymore anyway as no nuclear energy will be needed in heaven. :-) Up there I hear they use Solar energy exclusively.
Hopefully here on earth we will do likewise oneday

[jpak]

15. Let's be clear - compulsive delusional sociopathic behavior is treatable...

Nanosolar Launches 1-GW Thin-film CIGS Production Tool

http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/story?id=52850

Nanosolar Inc. has launched a new deposition throughput for the production of CIGS thin-film solar cells. The production tool has annual capacity of 1 gigawatt (GW).

This process eliminates the need for high-vacuum chambers and the kinds of high-vacuum based deposition techniques from other industries according to Nanosolar.

The tool uses Nanosolar's proprietary nanoparticle ink, which allows the company to deliver solar cells with close to 14% efficiency that are simply printed. The system represents an esimtated cost of US $1.65 million.

This process eliminates the need for high-vacuum chambers and the kinds of high-vacuum based deposition techniques from other industries according to Nanosolar.

<more>

:rofl:

[tinrobot]

19. The system represents an esimtated cost of US $1.65 million.

So, for 1.65 million, plus raw materials, we can produce 1 GW/year of solar electrical power, and factoring in things like night and cloudy weather, averages to about 250MW of actual power. You can build these printers fairly quickly, it probably wouldn't take more than a few months to manufacture one, a year to create an assembly line that can create many.

A current 1GW nuclear plant costs at least $2 billion just to build, and more to operate, plus with all the regulations, it takes at least a decade to approve and build one.

So, for $2 billion, we could build about 1200 of these thin film printing machines, which would print 1.2 Terawatts/year of raw power, which means more like 300GW of actual power. (Of course the $2 billion doesn't include raw materials).

Factor in the additional 9 or so years these thin film printers could be operating while we wait for that nuclear power plant to be built and you have 2.7 terawatts of clean available power compared to 1GW for the nuclear plant - in other words - 2,700 times as much power in 10 years.

How do I say this...

No brainer.

[madokie]

20. nuclear energy is but a gleam in the pro nukers eyes such as w seniors moment was on that faithful

day that he impregnated babs creating junior. it was fun while it lasted :rofl:

[kristopher]

21. You've hit the heart of the issue in-in-in

Invest in infrastructure

But why would you stop building the printing plants based on the price of one nuclear reactor. Doing the comparison with one plant was very informative and leads to the questions of how long it would take to build those 1200 plants and also "why stop at 1200?"

If we committed six months of the cost of the Iraq war (10 billion a month?) into a government program that paid for, built, and operated these plants for one life cycle, where would that leave us and what supply constraints would develop?

[tinrobot]

22. It wouldn't even cost $10 billion.

In 2005, the US consumed 3.34 TW of electrical power. Lets round it up to 4TW for good measure.

If each machine can produce 250MW of usable power in a year, then we need about 16,000 machine years to produce 4TW of usable power. That means 1600 machines for 10 years or 16,000 machines for one year. If you make it a 5 year plan, it would be just about $5 billion for the machines. This doesn't even account for the reduced prices due to mass production or the increased efficiencies with each new generation of machines. Additionally, each machine could keep printing after the 5 years is up, adding more power each year.

Of course, the supply of aluminum and solar ink would be a huge factor in this equation, as would overhead items such as labor, maintenance, and the power needed to run the machines. But I imagine that it would be totally possible as well if we made it a national priority like we did in WWII.

Just for reference, in 2005, the entire planet used 15TW of electrical power, so multiply those figures by about 5 to get that figure.

If we switch to electric/fuel cell cars, the figure goes up again.

[kristopher]

24. This is an excellent thought experiment.

Considering it from the perspective of policy, it is the kind of proposition that has very little downside. All I can see for unintended costs be a short period where competition to make efficiency gains would decrease to pay for revamping the concept of the grid.

I'd count on needing the capacity to power an electric fleet - that is part of your storage to incorporate increased generation intermittency. While wind needs to factor in, it is clear that the potential to make a dramatic shift in an incredibly short time is a present reality.

Again, this is a great insight. Thank you.

[bananas]

23. Once again, NNadir spreads misinformation - that "news" article is from 2002

Thin film production is increasing exponentially:


As is the rest of PV production:

http://www.earthpolicy.org/Indicators/Solar/2007.htm

Copyright © 2007 Earth Policy Institute

December 27, 2007

Solar Cell Production Jumps 50 Percent in 2007

Jonathan G. Dorn

Production of photovoltaics (PV) jumped to 3,800 megawatts worldwide in 2007, up an estimated 50 percent over 2006. At the end of the year, according to preliminary data, cumulative global production stood at 12,400 megawatts, enough to power 2.4 million U.S. homes. Growing by an impressive average of 48 percent each year since 2002, PV production has been doubling every two years, making it the world’s fastest-growing energy source.



<snip>

http://www.earthpolicy.org/Indicators/Solar/2007_data.htm

[Name removed]

25. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Greyskye]

26. I wonder if he even realizes how much he has turned into his own worst enemy?

The dreaded 'fundie' that he constantly rails about.

He should take Pogo's most famous quote to heart. Sad, really.