I think that SOLAR power is safer than nuclear and coal.

[devilgrrl]

If Western Europe can do solar so can we.

Discuss.

[gateley]

1. Nothing to discuss. I agree. I live in Seattle and I've heard it's even doable here --

on a limited basis, but we're workin' on it!

[upi402]

5. Actually Seattle is a great solar area - surprisingly

If panels get too hot they lose efficiency. I guess that makes E. WA especially great! But methane is dispatchable - can be used to generate when it's dark and not windy. Also geo thermal and tidal. SnoPUD north of Seattle is dveloping that with help from FERC IIRC.

Also, correcting for power factor, stopping air leaks etc etc etc - will drop demand 35-45%.
:fistbump:

[gateley]

7. That's really encouraging! Thanks for the education!! nt

[Tunkamerica]

2. But what if the sun explodes?

[Motown_Johnny]

39. then there won't be anyone left to blame you for it

and not "if" but "when"

when the sun explodes...

[physioex]

59. Ummmm....I think scientists

Have predicted it will in a few billion years, so it would go longer than petroleum.

[Mybrokenchains]

3. solar would be great, except its inefficient as hell, if the goverment spent on solar cell research

what they lost in the Iraq war? they'd be fricken amazing and everywhere

[SoCalDem]

4. CARTER was in favor of solar.. That was 1976..

Surely if we had put our best minds to work THEN, by now we would be off of oil... Gee now who would NOT want that to happen:grr:

[Gravel Democrat]

6. Larry Hagman claims he reduced his electric bill from $37,000/yr (sic) to $13 dollars! on his ranch

thirteen dollars.

That's what he claims. I've not seen his bills!

Larry Hagman, who played Texas oil tycoon J.R. Ewing in the hit 1970s shows Dallas and also starred in I Dream of Jeannie, is calling for people to embrace solar technology as part of a new "Shine, Baby, Shine" ad campaign for solar panel manufacturer SolarWorld.

"In the past, it was always about the oil. The oil was flowing and so was money. I quit years ago but I'm still in the energy business. There's always a better alternative. Shine, baby, shine!" Hagman, 78, says in a commercial posted on the SolarWorld website, before cackling happily.


The ad shows him looking at a portrait of himself as Ewing, exiting his hillside estate in Ojai, California, where he lives with wife Maj, and looking up at a red roof containing a solar panel.

Hagman is a longtime advocate of renewable energy and owns one of the largest U.S. residential solar panel systems, which cost him $750,000 when he bought it in 2003. He says they reduced his annual power bill from $37,000 to $13.

http://www.ontheredcarpet.com/Larry-Hagman-stars-in-SolarWorld-ad--Dallas-star-calls-for-solar-energy/7782976

[jasperfondoon]

12. Solar Electric Costs

If Larry Hagman paid $750,000 for his PV system and is saving $37,000 a year, it will take just over 20 years before the system starts paying for itself. That's quite a long time to recoup your initial investment. Come up with a much cheaper PV system and you'll be a winner. But, not like Charlie Sheen.

[AlabamaLibrul]

13. People spend longer dumping money into houses that are now underwater n/t

[Luminous Animal]

15. The building I live in was built in 1906. The gas lines that were installed at the time was an

investment, that investment has been recouped many times over.

[Raine]

8. TOTALLY Agree! nt

:thumbsup:

[JDPriestly]

9. I agree, devilgrrl

Put solar panels on every building in LA, and Southern California will have energy to spare.

As usual, today was warm and sunny. (We do have some cold days and a few, very few, rainy days.

I transplanted lettuce (and a few other plants I grew from seed) most of the afternoon.

My California poppies, roses, lavender, geraniums, begonias cosmos, nasturtiums. . . . . . . are in bloom.

I have a bunch of tomato plants growing. Tomatoes have already set on for a couple of them. In some of my neighbors' yards, the tomato plants that they planted last year are still growing and have tiny tomatoes on them. My baby figs are just starting to appear. (Cute little fellows.) The sun never stops shining for long in Southern California.

It is a waste to have so little solar in LA.

[CommonSensePLZ]

10. I'll just leave this here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_resources_and_consumption

[JDPriestly]

11. What in the world does your chart mean?

[Tunkamerica]

16. Apparently solar is worth 86000 turtle waxes

[CommonSensePLZ]

18. lol no

I think this shows how many TERAWATTS of energy were used in the world in a year versus the potential energy from various sources. Draw your conclusions.

[Tunkamerica]

19. I see. So not turtle wax. Potential energy of solar if a Dyson's sphere is erected, or what?

It isn't all that helpful without an explanation of how the potential is calculated.

[CommonSensePLZ]

23. Think about it

A couple of candles, a really good flashlight or lantern can't light very well, even the full Moon can't. The Sun is 398,359 times brighter than the full moon. Use an oven or radiator to heat a room, maybe somewhat efficient. Use the Sun and you can heat a whole half the world, but this is what Wikipedia has to say:

In 2008, total worldwide energy consumption was 474 exajoules (474×10^18 J) with 80 to 90 percent derived from the combustion of fossil fuels. This is equivalent to an average annual power consumption rate of 15 terawatts (1.504×10^13 W).

Most of the world's energy resources are from the sun's rays hitting earth. Some of that energy has been preserved as fossil energy, some is directly or indirectly usable; for example, via wind, hydro- or wave power. The term solar constant is the amount of incoming solar electromagnetic radiation per unit area, measured on the outer surface of Earth's atmosphere, in a plane perpendicular to the rays. The solar constant includes all types of solar radiation, not just visible light. It is measured by satellite to be roughly 1366 watts per square meter, though it fluctuates by about 6.9% during a year—from 1412 W m^−2 in early January to 1321 W m^−2 in early July, due to the Earth's varying distance from the sun, and by a few parts per thousand from day to day. For the whole Earth, with a cross section of 127,400,000 km2, the total energy rate is 174 petawatts (1.740×10^17 W), plus or minus 3.5%. This value is the total rate of solar energy received by the planet; about half, 89 PW, reaches the Earth's surface.

New York city uses about 27 gigawatts (27 million kilowatts 27×10^9)
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_issues_in_New_York_City#Energy_efficiency)

Therefore if I've done my maths correctly the world receives perhaps around 100 thousand times the energy New York city uses in a year from the Sun in one day. :o

That's free fucking heat and light everyday for billions of years. But we're starting to get desperate for gas.. I'm only going purely by the numbers and the sheer magnitude of the energy we get from the sun when I agree that solar power might be a good idea, I'm no expert.

[kristopher]

80. Good information. Let's flesh it out a bit.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x626150

[Paradoxical]

14. Western Europe? 70% of Frances power comes from nuclear plants.

[Luminous Animal]

17. WRONG. Most of France's power comes from gas or coal.

[FBaggins]

26. Not even close.

The vast majority of their electricity production is from nuclear power.

Which doesn't even count the fact that they export large amounts of the stuff too.

If you compare what they generate with nuclear to what they consumer in electricity (netting out the exports), they're pretty close to 100% nuclear.

[Luminous Animal]

84. You said most of their POWER not most of the ELECTRICAL power.

France's energy usage break down to 38% nuclear to generate electricity, 34% oil, 16% gas, and the rest hydro, coal, renewables, etc. (FYI, in my original response, I meant to say gas or oil - not coal.)

So yes, gas and oil combined supply 50% of France's energy needs.

[PBS Poll-435]

42. ROFL

:rofl:

[Luminous Animal]

85. It was claimed that nuclear energy supplies 70% of France's power. That is flat out false.

Nuclear energy supplies 70% of electrical power but only 34% of France's total power. Oil (which I meant to write instead of coal) and gas supply 50%, the rest is supplied by coal, hydro, & renewables.

[PBS Poll-435]

90. What the hell do you think we are talking about? Cooking fuel?

Charcoal grills?

WTF do you think Nuclear power plants produce?

[Luminous Animal]

91. We were talking about solar power. Please reread the OP. Paradoxical made the false claim that 70%

of France's power comes from nuclear power plants.

Paradoxical and you are wrong. 38% of France's power comes from nuclear power plants. The rest comes from oil, gas, coal, and renewable sources.

[tabasco]

81. LOL!

What France you talking about?

[Luminous Animal]

86. The one where oil and gas supply 50% of the power and nuclear 38%.

(I mistakenly said coal but meant oil in my original response.)

Nuclear energy supplies 70% of electrical power but only 34% of France's total power. Oil and gas combined supply 50%, the rest is supplied by coal, hydro, & renewables.

[fascisthunter]

52. and what about the rest of Western Europe?

[diane in sf]

20. Solar panels work well in the foggy zones of SF, and at this latitude they can face

anywhere from south to west.

[old mark]

21. Of course, you are right, but we have been stalling on every possible method

of using alternative energy sources here for several decades...whenever oil gets cheap, we all go back to sleep and forget to promote solar, wind, bio, etc...The same with the "crisis" in Social Security-didn't the politicians think the boomers would ever get older and retire?
They act like it is all a big surprize to them.
We should demand a refund of all the pay and benefits of all our elected officials over the last 40 years because they obviously did very little of any value while having a great time at our expense.


mark

[Donald Ian Rankin]

22. Much safer, but also very much less cost-efficient at present. N.T.

[Statistical]

24. Western Europe isn't "DOING" solar. Majority of power in Europe (and world) = fossil fuel.

Solar is a tiny fraction of output despite a decade of attractive subsidies.

[FBaggins]

25. It IS safer

So is hooking a generator up to your exercise bicycle so you can watch TV.

The problem with both is that you don't get enough power to actually drive a modern civilization. (and, of course, you sometimes need power at night).

If Western Europe can do solar so can we.

Western Europe is "doing" solar?

What percentage of their total electricity generation would you guess is currently supplied by solar (direct solar of course)?

[pipi_k]

27. Solar and wind power...

I would like to see both.

My town has been trying for quite a while to find some suitable spot to erect a wind tower but no luck so far. There are plenty of windy spots, but the locations themselves are probably not entirely suitable.

Like my driveway, for instance.

[IDemo]

28. Solar is just too high tech...

I'm not sure what percentage of daily household energy usage is from cooking and clothes drying, but I would bet if everyone
living in an area with plentiful solar insolation used these*, the total US energy savings would be significant:

*And was able to, anyway

solar cooker (my old cooker pictured)


solar clothes dryer (not mine)


solar grocery store (not mine, but very similar)

[CommonSensePLZ]

29. LOL

:)

[rdking647]

30. i looked into solar electric once

a couple years ago when I was living in madison. I went so far as to have a solr assesment done to see if it was feasible. I would have had to cut a tree down to make it work which I wasnt wiling to do anyway but what I found was the cost was prohibitive.
To supply all the electric my hous eused the system would have cpst 50-75k. even with the rebate the by power company offered it made no economic sense to do it.

solar hot water on the other hand would have made sense (if i removed the tree)

Im sorry bu solar electric just doesnt make economic sense yet..

[roody]

32. You must have a big house. Mine cost less than 10K

with rebates, etc. I pay little or nothing for electric.

[cali]

31. what do you mean by Western Europe can do solar?

because it looks like you're trying to say FALSELY that Western Europe uses mainly solar to power and that's not fucking true. I deplore posts like yours. Do you even know how many nuke plants France ALONE has? Take a guess.

UNRECCED for rank bullshit.

[Zorra]

33. I've used solar for most of my life. It is awesome.

My system paid for itself many years ago. My solar panels just sit there and provide me with basically free electricity, except that about once every 7-10 years I have to replace batteries so that costs me about $500. But I figure I'd easily spend that in a year buying electricity from a corporation.

Giant energy producing companies generate more than electricity. They generate huge masses of bullshit too. The last thing they want to see are widespread alternative energy systems that are not a constant source of profit for them. So they spread their talking points and the sheep bleat them over and over - like this - "solar energy is baaaaaad baaaaaad baaaaad".

It is so annoying.
;)

[etherealtruth]

34. Solar energy is not bad ...

.... but, there does need to be a discussion of the wastes related to the production of the photo-voltaic cells (specifically mercury and chromium) and the disposal of retired cells.

Its a smallish issue at this point in time due to the very limited use .... however, massive production and use does raise some issues.

All methods of mass production of power has significant environmental consequences. No discussion is complete without discussing reducing our use of power (generated by any source) ... SIGNIFICANTLY.

[Zorra]

35. Of course there are problems regarding waste...but -

Solar cells last 20 years or more. My current panels are 11 years old.

Relatively speaking, the amount of waste generated by using solar systems on a mass scale would be insignificant in environmental impact and toxicity compared to the waste generated by fossil fuels and nuclear power production/use/storage/transportation. I suspect recycling of materials is already possible to an extent and/or would be possible if serious research was done.

But I do agree with you that producing probably anything on a mass industrial scale presents a waste problem.

[etherealtruth]

36. I disagree with romanticizing the use of solar

It is a good alternative .... however, many arm chair proponents have no understanding of the processes and materials/ wastes involved.

My larger point is that the most important facet of the discussion should be drastically reducing our consumption from all sources.

[Zorra]

37. Yeah, well, it works great for me, and I have generated miniscule environmental pollution

from the use of solar power in my life. Maybe some escaped gas from batteries.

But, then again, you apparently are an expert on solar; and I, alas, am just a lowly armchair proponent.

But hey! Limiting energy usage is a fantastic idea! In fact, I have probably used 1/100th, maybe even way less, of the amount of energy used by the average person my age in the US over my lifetime.

So, what kind of power do you use in your home?

Nuclear, or fossil fuel?

[etherealtruth]

40. I wonder why you are taking this as an attack?

Your responses to posts that state that solar is a good alternative ....but not perfect appears to really rankle you ...?

Is it my assertion that a more important discussion is that of cutting our consumption of power is the most important facet ... ? I stand by that. As a whole, the best alternative is to drastically cut our consumption as a society ... this will have the largest impact.


Odd

edit to add: I don't claim any expertise related to the production of photo-voltaic cells. I do claim some knowledge related to the handling and disposal of hazardous waste and I claim some knowledge of site remediation associated with contamination with these materials.

[LAGC]

45. You go first.

Try living without your computers or heat/air-conditioning, hot showers, etc. before you lecture the rest of us to reduce our energy consumption.

The more technologically advanced a society becomes, the more power its industries needs to thrive.

We aren't going to be reducing our energy foot-print any time soon. We need power, the only question is what is the most cost-effective way of getting it while minimizing potential harm to the environment?

[etherealtruth]

47. I have

Not nearly enough .... but I have.

I drive a small fuel efficient vehicle, my family and I live in a very small energy efficient home. I have traded "size" for efficiency (which oddly, is frequently more $$$) in most aspects of my life. i am so far from perfect .... but I keep working toward being better. I don't mind being the first (i'm not ... but in response to your post)to make sacrifices.

My point is this: if we switched our (a collective societal "our")reliance to solar power for all of our needs (for home, industry ...) we are simply trading problems if we don't drastically reduce our consumption .... Japan is an excellent (my heart breaks for them right now) example of cutting consumption (living spaces are small, transportation is comparatively efficient).

If you read my posts at no point do I criticize the use of solar (aside from pointing out that its not perfect ... its not) .... I simply state that its use on a societal level will bring its own problems with out tremendous reductions in our consumption.

[Zorra]

48. "Romanticizing" and "armchair proponents" are very condescending

words in the context you presented. Propaganda often consists of using implication rather than direct expression.

And what kind of bullshit is "Is it my assertion that a more important discussion is that of cutting our consumption of power is the most important facet...?

Get real dude. Of course it isn't, and you damn well know it. I specifically wrote that I think cutting consumption of power is a great idea.

I came to that conclusion thirty something years ago.

Have a nice day!
:hi:

[etherealtruth]

51. Ahhh .... truly sorry

I can see how the use of those words may be taken that way ... for that I apologize.

That wasn't my intent.

[jberryhill]

69. You made your own photovoltaic cells and panels?

So, did you use mono or polycrystalline material to start, or did you make your own silicon from scratch? What chemicals did you use for doping and what was your metallization process?

Or did you make amorphous panels from organosilicate gases? And did you make them from scratch?

Seriously, I want to hear about this "no waste" solar panel production method, because when I was in the industry, the handling of a lot of organic solvents and other chemical waste was atrocious across the board.

[fascisthunter]

53. lol... are you trying to defend in favor of Nuclear?

because I don't see people here romanticizing anything, and I would think that anyone who understood the ramifications of nuclear fallout would be a proponent of an alternative rather than dissuader.

[etherealtruth]

56. At what point do you think I favor nuclear?

I favor small efficient homes and vehicles. I favor mass transit. I favor efficient industry that is encouraged (actually mandated) to make initial (costly) investments in efficient processes.

I believe in utilizing energy from a multitude of sources, but using it sparingly. We have a culture that squanders our resources. You can be offended by that statement ... but it is my fervent belief (right or wrong it is what I believe)

I have no problem with "solar" ... and actually am in favor of it in many many settings .... I don't feel that the "public" at large has any idea of what goes into the production of photo-voltaic cells .... or what goes into the generation of power.

[physioex]

68. Hah...

It would be silly to think there are simple answers. But we need to get of fossil fuels, there simply is no other choice.

[etherealtruth]

72. I agree

[proud patriot]

38. I agree

[UTUSN]

41. Agree up to when it gets totally pissed & zaps us or just unpissedly randomly zaps us!1

(I totally realize how stupid this (my) post is!1 Thanks in advance!1)

[JVS]

44. The disaster with solar would be something more like tornados ripping though a big solar site...

and turning it into a big superfund cleanup.

[UTUSN]

61. K&R #22 for a worthy thread that didn't deserve my stupid post and thanks for the perspective11 n/t

[slackmaster]

43. I'm going solar at home. My rooftop grid-tied PV system should be installed some time in April.

I expect to reach the break-even point in about seven years, coinciding with the payoff of my mortgage.

The only thing that could foil my plan would be San Diego Gas & Electric discovering a previously unknown, limitless source of cheap electric power and cutting everyone's rates.

:spray:

[underseasurveyor]

46. We KNOW solar is safer than nuclear

No ifs, ands or buts about it!!!! Period!

[MikeW]

49. safer but you cant power an entire city with it without a whole lot of land or panels.

[fascisthunter]

50. We HAVE TO DO IT, with or without the rich

time to take their power away from them... they aren't responsible enough and feel gambling with others' lives are acceptable, so fuck em and their system.

[upi402]

55. You are 100% right. Utility companies will go for it

...until we go off-grid too much with community energy generation. But by then it will be a done deal.

Communities are starting... rural communities seem to have that 'farmers' co-op' ability that cities don't. They have methane sources too, which generates energy when the sun goes down and the wind stops blowing.

DER (Distributed Energy Resources = various types of alternative nergy) will be needed to make it work. Solar's good for commercial loads which happen during the day, but residential is generally a night time load.

[fascisthunter]

57. We(my household) will be installing Solar sooner than later

it's time

[upi402]

64. Solar panels put out DC voltage, Computers use DC voltage

We convert DC to AC and then the computer converts AC back to DC. Each conversion wastes energy, causes heat which electronics hate.

Seems smart to avoid the cost of equipment and waste of solar energy. I found a manual for a junk puter online and was able to label voltage needed by each of the groups of wires coming off the power supply in the puter.

Next I'm looking at using resistors as a voltage divider???? Just chewing on an idea...
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/voldiv.html

[physioex]

60. I have thought about that...

It is time to de-centralize power production and put it in local hands. Keep the money where it is produced and used. Less need for wars and more resistant to price swings.

[fascisthunter]

63. localizing is a great idea

[fascisthunter]

54. Good Thinking

[pintobean]

58. I think a spoon is safer than a knife and fork

But it's not very efficient when I eat steak.

[former9thward]

62. Western Europe does nuclear and coal not solar.

Where are you getting this? Western Europe relies on nuclear energy far more than the U.S.

[devilgrrl]

71. You've obviously have never been to Germany

eom

[hack89]

73. Germany is the world's 4th largest generator of nuclear power

They have 17 reactors.

http://www.eoearth.org/article/Energy_profile_of_Germany

Coal is their largest source of domestic energy.

[devilgrrl]

74. That may well be at they make a concerted effort to use solar...

unlike the sunny dry Southwestern United States.

[JVS]

82. Germany's energy policy is nothing to emulate.

They actually stopped making Western reactors and ended up importing energy from old Soviet reactors in the Czech republic. Even their green party is permitting the construction of new coal plant. Also, they have hampered themselves with an energy policy that avoids nuclear because the issue of nuclear weapons and nuclear power became conflated in the public mind during the cold war.

[pinkkillersheep]

65. Our national grid isn't built for utility-scale solar.

It makes the most economic sense to have utility-scale solar power plants. Unfortunately the places you would most likely put it are far from the coast, which is where most people live. The grid can't handle massive output from, say, Nevada to the Western coast. We also need better storage. We currently just consume what we're producing as we produce it. Can't always do that with solar. Similar arguments can be made about wind.

Don't get me wrong, I love solar and wind. Heck, I was one of the founding members of Ohio State's 2009 Solar Decathlon team. If you aren't familiar with it, I recommend checking it out.

[physioex]

66. How about this....

Use the solar to produce hydrogen. Ofcourse that would also require transportation, but we already have some sort of distribution for petroleum.

[azul]

79. Where are you getting that baloney?

California was swindled out of billions of dollars and made into black-out crisis by Enron and other traders fraudulently manipulating the grid. Californians responded by conserving up to 40% of power and scared the crap out of the industry. Gray Davis was taken out as governor so that California would not sue the cheats to get the money back and throw them in jail. Junior and Arnold were their guys.

A solar system on each home and business with battery storage power tied into a grid is the ticket. Try 20 million cars here in California each with a 20KWh battery tied to a smart grid with 10 million 8KW residential and 100 thousand 100KW business solar systems for sustainability. We can do it in 5-10 years if there is the will.

[kristopher]

88. Absolutely correct.

[pinkkillersheep]

93. You haven't actually disputed anything I said.

Putting that part aside, you're right. If each residence has its own production and storage then that could work. But now you're requiring everybody to purchase and install a PV system and EVs. That's incredibly expensive and not always practical. In addition to all that, it makes little sense to go through all that trouble to power an inefficient house - a ton of what you produce will just be wasted. It makes more sense for people with limited resources to spend the money on updating old appliances, replacing old windows, and insulating their houses. After that, I'd rather have people install solar thermal first, preferably in conjunction with a radiant floor system for heating. Solar thermal has a faster ROI than PVs.

I'll admit I don't have enough knowledge on the commercial implementation you suggested. As I said, my experience was with residential. But the one problem I foresee is maintenance. We need better batteries for that.

Sorry, but the only way you're realistically going to get solar up any time soon is if you do utility-scale, concentrated solar. Even that's being held up by environmentalists worried about potential impacts on reptiles and such.

[jberryhill]

67. Because you are ignorant of the toxic chemical mess of solar production

But, hey, the Chinese will poison themselves for your "clean" power, so, cool.

Photovoltaic panels just come shooting out of the assholes of grass fed free range unicorns in your world, I suppose.

[devilgrrl]

75. So let's not do something about those concerns?

I see your point btw.

[azul]

78. And your computer and TV and phone have a what?

The SVTC warns that solar panel production creates many of the same toxic byproducts as those found in semiconductor production, ...

http://cleantechnica.com/2009/01/14/danger-solar-panels-can-be-hazardous-to-your-health/


And how does this pollution compare to nuclear or oil pollution? Does it contribute to global warming or wars? Can it be lessened or changed to minimize it?

Look at the list of chemicals that are in our food and water and air that could be hazardous to our health that we really don't know the toxicity. Thousands and thousands that are untested.

[jberryhill]

83. Imagine making acres of flat panel tv screens

It's one thing for every house to have one several square foot electronic device. Going from that to several square yards isn't going to make the process any cleaner.

[kristopher]

89. Recyling the by-products of solar is cost effective -it is cheaper than buying new raw material

How is that nuclear storage thing working?

[azul]

70. Europe is trying to get out of the vise-grip.

We should be too. Safety or economics or both will determine where we invest.

Probably the most important but least immediate safety issues of fossil carbon burning is global climate warming, and that overhangs us all. The other dangers of burning oils are wars to secure future sources, and becoming stupid from terrific propaganda to support these wars and to deny the dangers of this pollution. Then there is the dangerous costs to freedom and the pocketbook to protect against these infuriated and desperate people that these invasions and occupations create.

Which ties in with the other topic of nuclear safety. Nuclear power plants and materials have to be protected from these desperate and radicalized people that would use it as a weapon, practically for ever. And as Mother Nature has just shown, the materials are inherently dangerous and risky.

While solar, and wind power for that matter, are produced locally and variously and so are not as vulnerable to disruptions and accidents. Also, the electric power generated can be stored in batteries and as hydrogen for off-production time use, and shared into a grid.

Plus Solar is going to make us employed and free from debts and wars and restore our personal freedoms. And make us romantic as hell and in touch with nature at the same time.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h4AuSwrQOIo

[physioex]

87. Well put.....

I think it will be a combination of things. Wind, solar, and fossil fuels during peak loads, and when mother nature doesn't cooperate. In the worse case it would be night with no wind blowing.

[Rex]

76. But solar power is nuclear power!

Just all natural, like nature intended it to be.

[Fla_Democrat]

77. Edit

edit

:eyes:




:smoke:

[LWolf]

92. What's to discuss? It's obvious.

Solar, wind, wave...those are resources that aren't going anywhere as long as the planet sustains life.

They don't have toxic waste products; they don't come with health risks.

They simply require research and infrastructure that diverts resources from those with an interest in keeping riskier sources on top.