Put solar roofing panels on most structures. Shade all large parking lots

[Zorra]

in hot sunny areas of the western US with solar panels. Run them directly into the grid, and store any excess electricity in centralized battery banks. And/or have additions added to the outside of every structure to house individual battery banks that are serviced by government employees solar electric trained to maintain and troubleshoot solar electric systems.

Solar hot water producing systems could also be installed on roofs and parking lots as part of this project.

This would probably have the least environmental impact from placement of solar arrays.

Every structure that had a solar roof would generate its own clean electrical power with minimal collateral waste, and batteries are recyclable as well as refurbishable. This would take care of all residential as well as commercial energy needs. The excess power could go to supplying energy needs for industry.

The panels shading the parking lots could also supply residential, commercial, and industrial needs.

Back the systems up with community generators that are fueled by natural gas.

Start funding the project first by taking the $35 billion they're going to give to the nuclear industry and using it for the solar electric systems. End government giveaways to giant oil companies. End the wars and use the savings to fund the solar electric. Since no one would have to pay fossil fuel/nuclear energy driven power companies anymore for power anymore, everyone could be taxed $10 per adult per month per household for electricity. Businesses could be minimally taxed according to their power usage.

If we diverted all the time, money, and energy we are currently devoting to the production and use of fossil/nuclear fueled energy, and used it for the purposes described above, we could all have much cheaper, cleaner energy. We could become much less dependent on the oil industry plutarchs. Enormous numbers of jobs would be generated from building, maintaining, recycling, and refurbishing the systems. Satellite industries, stores, suppliers, etc. that would spring up to serve the needs of the solar grid.

No more nukes. Way less filthy air and water from toxic waste generated by the petroleum industry.

Think about it. Wouldn't it be awesome?

OK, corporate trolls. I know you have been waiting for me. You've already got your corporate bullshit right there in front of you.

Let's get this over with.

[shraby]

1. Takes some brave legislators but I'm afraid their pockets

are too lined with gold.

[Snotcicles]

69. And we have Uni-Solar ( Energy Conversion Devices) a leader in flexible solar roofing panels

cutting production because France and Italy have cut orders.

[ecdfan]

194. Uni-Solar ( Energy Conversion Devices) is no leader

Uni-Solar ( Energy Conversion Devices) is simply a scam and no leader other than in stealing investor money. The Uni-Solar modules are actually made in Mexico. $11 million of the sales to Italy last quarter were to an entity affiliated with the former Chairman of Helm Finance SGR, a hedge fund busted by the Italian authorities. Poof! There go the orders!

[tclambert]

136. Yeah, who has more lobbyists, the solar industry, or the oil industry?

Exxon Mobil has set the energy policy of this country for decades.

[tabatha]

2. I agree.

It is mind-boggling to think that enormous ecological damage is happening in Japan so that people can play video games, watch TV, and use all the other endless electrical gadgets. If each home can produce all the electricity they use, that would be a huge step in the right direction.

[Poll_Blind]

3. Yes please! n/t

PB

[pipi_k]

4. Well I can't say what the overall results would be...

but I do think it's an idea worth trying, anyway.

:)

[dkf]

5. Yup. But our government wants us dependent on utilities so they won't support solar.

They dont want us to have energy freedom.

[Kablooie]

34. I talked with a guy from Cal Edison and at least this utility is actively trying to boost solar.

[jacquelope]

64. Yeah, as long as Edison controls it, right?

If they really cared, why not push for more incentives for solar on residential rooftops? That is REAL energy independence.

[Kablooie]

92. Of course, but at least they see it as a viable direction to develop.

There are two different issues.
One is developing solar power and limit the destruction to the environment.

The other is the corporate ownership of energy sources.

If we got only one of them first, it's at least a start.

[trud]

74. I guess that government hatred of solar

Is why they offer all those tax credits for it.

[Le Taz Hot]

147. Tax credits are not the same as funding,

but I think you knew that, didn't you?

[no limit]

6. Just as long as I don't have to pay for it.

Because I can't afford the cost associated with something like that and I assume most americans can't either. Most of us don't have 20 grand to dump in to a solar system.

[Zorra]

11. I wrote of possible ways of funding the system with minimal costs to

everyone, except, I suppose, multinational corporations because of their profit loss.

It could save us all money if done wisely.

[no limit]

26. There are around 100 million households in the US. If you only take 35 billion

that's $350 per household. The $10 tax isn't going to add much to that. So we are still coming up way short of the thousands of dollars per household that this would take. And the fact is that 35 billion for solar will not generate a small fraction of the energy 35 billion in nuclear or other power sources would.

[Zorra]

31. I wrote $10 per month per adult head per household.

This significantly increases the revenue.

There is a great deal of corporate pork that could be diverted to this project.

If we can bail out banks, we can certainly fund a New Deal type energy project that will be an investment that will eventually pay for itself and could in fact generate revenue through the sale of cheaper power to Canada and Mexico. Not to mention the enormous revenue dedicated through job creation, which extrapolates into inc social security revenue, less government expenditure in unemployment benefits and necessary charitable government programs like food stamps, etc.

Certainly there will be problems. But these problems are solvable, and will not cause fear, harm, and death to anyone like the enormously expensive problems we are currently seeing that have resulted from the foolish and indiscriminate use of nuclear reactors in Japan.

[JDPriestly]

60. If we had calculated in that fashion way back when we built the Hoover Dam

and the Tennessee Valley Authority, we still wouldn't have electricity. Of course we can afford this. 25 % of our trade imbalance is due to energy imports. Put a VAT on those energy imports and finance the cost of solar energy panels on American homes with the tax revenues.

[jacquelope]

93. $35 billion into solar energy will fetch $70 billion of results in 2 years

and double that in 2 more years.

http://www.livescience.com/4824-solar-power-rule-20-years-futurists.html

Regardless of any one technology, members of the panel are "confident that we are not that far away from a tipping point where energy from solar will be competitive with fossil fuels," Kurzweil said, adding that it could happen within five years.

The reason why solar energy technologies will advance exponentially, Kurzweil said, is because it is an "information technology" (one for which we can measure the information content), and thereby subject to the Law of Accelerating Returns.

"We also see an exponential progression in the use of solar energy," he said. "It is doubling now every two years. Doubling every two years means multiplying by 1,000 in 20 years. At that rate we'll meet 100 percent of our energy needs in 20 years."

[truedelphi]

186. We have already spent at least two trillion bucks on a war

The Powers that Be told us would eliminate the dangerous Iraqi Weapons of Mass Destruction.

They said it would probably only take a few weeks, and would bring us all a lot of cheap gasoline.

Two trillion bucks would do a lot of the stuff we need done.

Over the past few days, we come to find out that Germany is able to suspend their nuclear power plants until they have all been checked out. Together with Japan, Germany has a huge edge over other countries in terms of having bought up the manufacturing and the actual solar cells.

Why is this? Because they actually spend money on items that are productive for their citizens.

But the Powers that Be here in America feel it is far more patriotic to keep fighting these endless, pointless, expensive and goddamn bloody wars than to actually solve our energy crisis.

[MadHound]

47. But you do dump that kind of money into other forms of producing electricity,

In fact given how much that federal, state and local governments subsidize both nuclear and fossil fuel plants, you're probably paying more.

With solar and wind, you are simply paying your electric bill for the next twenty years up front instead of spread out. This could be worked out so that the cost is also spread out by including the costs of installing solar in your mortgage, or using low interest loans or other such methods of financing.

[humbled_opinion]

82. This is my complaint too..

As we remain slaves to oil, there is no acceptable, affordable alternatives so all this talk about green energy is great rhetoric but it really doesn't get us anywhere as a nation. I want to be off the grid so bad, I hate my $400 per month electric bill, I hate filling up my car which now costs me about $45.00 to do, who wouldn't want free renewable energy... the solar technology is not there yet... adequate power output and energy storage are the big downfalls..a typical household even with full roof panels costing between 20 - 40 thousand would not provide enough power to run all the appliances... Of course we can all buy into doing both using alternative to cut back but think think think what will the power companies do when people start using less?????? They will jack the price up so you still wind up paying for it....

Why is it like this??? Because we lack leadership in government....

[Lorien]

99. This guy hated his electric bills too. Solar saved his company:

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/techinnovations/2006-07-30-solar-laundromat_x.htm

[humbled_opinion]

108. Yes but too bad that is only for his hot water...

not the electricity to run the Dryers, lights etc... yes solar panels for Hot Water are wonderful and they are cost effective you typically recoup the initial cost in 5 years or so and yes they do save money and as soon as my Hot water heater goes out I will most likely buy a solar unit, especially to get the Tax Credit too ... that also takes up a pretty good spot on the roof like 10 x 4 ft is average....

[Zorra]

121. Check out the 'toon in post #96.

A picture is worth a thousand words! Don't buy into the corporate bullshit.
:D

[Lorien]

98. Over the long term it pays for itself and then some

oil and coal do not.

So maybe your user name should be "Some limits"?

[bhikkhu]

106. Guess what - you're share of the national debt is 100 grand already!

...and you didn't get squat for it, just a bunch of lousy wars, some corrupt foreign dictators, and a few fat and happy bailed-out billionaries.

If you think about it as not sinking yet another 100 grand into all the usual crap, but rather doing something that changes the game for good, then it seems like a better deal.

[druidity33]

137. We paid around 7Gs for my 3.2 kW system...

4 years ago (with a 0% interest gov't loan). We only pay electric bills in the winter now... haven't gotten one higher than $22. We were expecting our payback period to be 7-8 years, but it looks like it'll be more like 5. The prices have been coming down too. Take advantage of incentives and don't forget to have your house Energy rated and weather sealed.

:shrug:

[Ganja Ninja]

7. I think we should have a program where people can have a home solar/wind ...

generating systems installed by their electric company and paid for by the government. The home owners could then pay off the cost of the system monthly as part of their bill. Since the generating system would reduce their bills the repayment would in part be offset by the savings.

[JDPriestly]

61. That's also a good idea.

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

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

[Zorra]

15. LOL! How about we tax oil company and defense industry profits?

And nuke industry profits so they can pay to clean up their own mess.

Necessity is the mother of invention.

[BeFree]

18. See?

Yall have all the answers.

Make those responsible pay.

You do realize how stupid everyone not a hippie thinks that is, right?
They all think the tooth fairy will come through and solve all the problems, if we just grow more teeth.

[Zorra]

27. Ya know, I'm startin' ta spect yer a hippie librul commie environmentalist agitator

dedicated to the destruction of corporate control of US government and I bet you even support dangerous political systems like democracy. Rush told us all about you heathen devils.
:hippie:
Agent Mike! We got anuther one!

[BeFree]

28. No, please

Not agent Mike. Ya do that and gitmo will be my new home.

I forgive, and forget. Honest. I love me some more nukes, Mike. Love 'em to death.

[SaveAmerica]

46. A commie socialist marxist, like O'Bama

[JDPriestly]

62. The corporations that own the plants.

I understand that about 40 of the plants in the US have the same horrible flaw that the troubled Japanese plants have -- facilities to cool spent fuel on the roof. They need to be closed immediately and at the expense of those who own the plants.

[Enthusiast]

151. Yeah, that would be like holding

those responsible,..................responsible. We don't can't that! We need to get government off the back of private enterprise! :rofl:

[syberlion]

168. That worked really well with all the super fund companies

How well have things gone with the EPA Super Fund? Didn't they tell us the major polluters would pay back for the clean up? Funny how with corporate news we don't hear much about the lack of enforcement on all these major polluters...

As for the comments about the cost, Prices will change once you have more companies making the product. With the strangle-hold oil corps have with billions of tax subsidies, like they need help finding oil, the money isn't there for the seed money needed to get more manufacturers out there producing more solar products which would drive the overall prices down to affordable levels.

Not to mention, Solar and Wind are energy sources which can not be harnessed by a few, greedy distributors. So, there is a very strong incentive to keep these energy forms as costly as possible. The higher the cost, the fewer people able to take advantage. It's pretty sick when you think about it.

[Enthusiast]

193. Pretty sick indeed!

I am so fed up with it.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

188. Was that supposed to be an insult?

[jeff47]

9. Problem: The grid

The grid can't handle it. And I happen to live in one of the cloudiest places in the US, so we'd definitely have to be importing electricity in your scenario.

So while I agree with your level-of-effort estimate in installing all those solar panels vs. current generation methods, the giant elephant in the room is the grid. Fixing that in any meaningful time frame is an Apollo-project level endeavor, so it can't just be hand-waved away.

There's also the little problem of the billions of tons of raw materials to make those solar panels and batteries. It's not like there's a ton of lead mines waiting to make billions of new batteries.

[KittyWampus]

19. does your area create garbage daily? It could be turned into energy on a local basis >

like they're already doing in Europe. And in some very few spots in the US.

[jtuck004]

22. It is done in Spokane. Costs more to burn than they get out.

And takes a fair amount of natural gas with it, which destroys how much drinking water to procure?

Just want people to be aware there are costs for all these.

[KittyWampus]

71. if it costs more than they get out- they're doing it very wrong.

[tabbycat31]

52. my county is powered by a landfill

[Zorra]

24. Good points. Currently, almost 90% of all lead batteries in the US are recycled.

So while there would be an initial huge spike for lead production and other materials at the start of the project, demand would tail off as the number of batteries reached the level of need, resulting in much less use of resources.

Lots of jobs would be created. Resulting revenue from the increase in employment could help fund the project. It could even kick us out of this recession like WWII kicked us out of the Depression, and cut unemployment to almost zero.

Also, almost 20% of Germany's energy comes from solar. Germany is similar to many cloudy areas in the US. I doubt you'd be importing electricity.

Study FDR and the New Deal. Massive projects were undertaken similar in scope to the one I am proposing.

We are still reaping major benefits from the projects undertaken during the Roosevelt Administration.

[quakerboy]

117. I am not sure how accurate that is

Batteries wear out with use, so I foresee the demand staying pretty steady, if we went that route.

I wonder though, does Germany make extensive use of batteries?

Jobs would be created though. Assuming that we didn't just contract china to make everything for us.

[Zorra]

127. Well, 90% is the EPA estimate. I'm sure the nuclear industry has different figures.

But don't take my word for it. Please look it up for yourself.

If I am mistaken, please let me know.

[quakerboy]

170. Wow.

please accept my appologies. Apparently my reading comprehension was way down yesterday, and I completely missed the subject line of your post. I thought I was responding to a claim that once initial demand was met, the need for batteries would suddenly go away. My bad.

Either way, I would return to the second half of my post. I am curious how much Germany has to rely on using batteries in conjunction with its solar input. It seems to me that even with efficient recycling, there has got to be a better way than massive batteries. Maybe solar during the day, wind at night, A big push to make upgrading to efficient heating, water heating, and lighting affordable for all, and some geothermal and hydro to get us through any low spots?

[Confusious]

144. 2 percent in germany

25% by 2050.

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

[Enthusiast]

155. I love the massive projects of the New Deal.

Imagine how slowly our energy infrastructure would have developed without these massive investment strategies, or the highway system as another example. How slowly? How about not at all.

But our opponents engaged in a strategy of "starve the beast", and they did it with great success. They spent all our potential on wars of choice and tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires.

Now this very same bunch and their Democratic political allies are engaged in de-funding the government.

How can we achieve our goals under these circumstances created with the objective of destroying government?

[ejpoeta]

72. imagine if obama had done a WPA type program to put people to work

like building bridges and roads..and upgrading the grids to allow people to add to the electricity if they have left over. or for sunnier places to help cloudier places. There are things we can do. And i still say it is a national security issue. And as someone stated the trade imbalance! but there are monied interests that like the way things are and don't want things to change.

[cyberpj]

86. You mean like he said he would? n/t

[ejpoeta]

89. did he say he would? i just think that would have done a lot to help the economy.

putting people to work doing things that needed to be done. uggh.

[cyberpj]

104. Obama's WPA - 12/6/08 article and test of speech:

Obama's WPA
Posted by Jay Newton-Small
Saturday, December 6, 2008

In his radio address today Obama outlined an ambitious plan to get the economy back on track. The plan has five points:

1. Embark on a large-scale effort to make public buildings more energy-efficient;

2. Make the single largest new investment in our national infrastructure since President Eisenhower established the Interstate Highway System in the 1950s – creating millions of jobs and compelling states to act quickly and make smart investments;

3. Create jobs and help our children compete by launching the most sweeping effort to modernize and upgrade school buildings that this country has ever seen;

4. Renew our information superhighway by boosting broadband deployment in communities across America;

5. Modernize our health care system so that every hospital and doctor's office is using cutting-edge technology and every American has access to electronic medical records.


Read more: http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2008/12/06/obama%e2%80%99s-wpa/#ixzz1GoyyXqbw

[ejpoeta]

111. thanks. i didn't remember that. it is very depressing. it feels like

screaming into the wind! no one hears you. or no one cares.

[cyberpj]

182. I continue to wonder what happened to all that hope. Was it really only campaign lies?

You know, was he
- fooling us?
- fooling himself?

Everyone keeps saying, "well... he was never a liberal you know".

Fine.

But all those promises are what got him elected and he's the one who made 'em.

What happened?

[ejpoeta]

185. either it was a sham all along or else he got into office

and the voices around him got to him. it's rather depressing. Who is on our side!! it seems they are all hanging us out to dry. they all want that money the big corporations are doling out. and to do that you have to dance.

[JDPriestly]

177. How many of those promises has Obama accomplished?

Seems to me he should have been working on fulfilling these promises rather than bailing out banks.

[cyberpj]

181. Preachin' to the choir man, preachin' to the choir. nt.

[Agony]

184. we need to bring back the Nickel-Iron battery.

There are 100 year old Ni-Fe batteries still in operation. Uses a Potassium Hydroxide electrolyte. Exide corporation bought out the Edison Ni-Fe battery and buried it.

of course we will need iron and nickel mines...

[L. Coyote]

10. Solar panel parking lot shelters to charge electric cars!

[Zorra]

25. Yep. Totally great idea. nt

[MsPithy]

43. How about solar collection coating on roads,

and power transfers to electric cars on the move, so cars charge as you drive?

[Confusious]

143. That would involve radiation and cancer!

Phear!

[kentauros]

195. A coating probably wouldn't be durable enough.

There is another method, though: Solar Roads

Of course, that would take a while to implement. An idea I just had that would be an easier thing to do right now, would be to use the OP's idea over the roads. It would have the added advantage of blocking most precipitation and keeping the roads clear :)

[cyberpj]

183. EXcellent, Smithers. n/t.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

12. There is quite a bit more to this that you realize

Appreciate the zeal, but there are some real world difficulties associated with powering the grid with astable sources alone. starting with the "Batteries". More can and should be done, but it will be sometime before Los Angeles and other major cities can go 100% renewable in the west, let alone the northeast. There will other environmental prices to pay in the process.

BTW, I have a 5kw of solar currently online going to 15kw later this year...

[Zorra]

38. "There are those that look at things the way they are, and ask why?

I dream of things that never were, and ask why not?" Robert F. Kennedy

"The only thing we have to fear is fear itself" FDR

Wise words from great people way smarter than me. But their wise words made me think about them, and their truth and application in my life. Paying attention to them has helped increase the quality of my life immensely.

People said the projects undertaken during the New Deal were impossible. Going to the moon was impossible. The earth is flat. That nuclear power was impossible. A black President was impossible. Air travel was impossible. The combustion engine was impossible. Electricity was impossible. So on and so forth, blah blah blah, the nayssayers, the fearful of change, have said that almost every new, good idea (and some bad ones too) throughout history was impossible. Probably starting somewhere around the ideas for the knife and fire.

Now they are saying that mass use of alternative energy is impossible.

Almost everything is impossible for people that don't try because they are afraid.

Yes, there is far more to this than anyone realizes until we actually do it. This is totally totally do-able in the physical sense. In real time the main obstacle is powerful corporations that don't want their profits cut.

I don't know about you, but I never had any success by not doing something that I wanted to do that was productive and beneficial for me. Unforeseen problems arose, and I solved them as necessary.

We have a problem. We need to solve it. This is a safe, constructive, and viable solution. There will be obstacles that will arise.

But no obstacle to this solution is as great an obstacle as knowing you are definitely going to die a horrible, incurable death from acute radiation poisoning.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

51. I suggested none of what you discussed, and in fact it is already happening

There remain some clear conflict in concepts, but overall we are evolving towards a renewables based energy base. It is not a fast or as easy as many think it should be, but it is moving. Zeal and flag waving is a good thing, as long as it does not get in the way of real progress.

[Zorra]

57. Okeedokee, yer the perfesser. nt

[msongs]

13. I have rooftop solar, its wonderful tho pricey (8 year payback time) - NO corporate solar only

rooftop solar for everyone. Free our selves from the corporations!

[slackmaster]

14. The 8-year payback made it a no-brainer for me

I'll make my last mortgage payment right around the time my PV system hits break-even.

[FourScore]

17. Very cool.

[quakerboy]

120. Ive gotten 2 quotes

And with our state incentives, payback is only 5 years here.

[FourScore]

16. There is a new technology a man has invented

whereby roads can be made with solar panels. It has passed durability tests.

[KittyWampus]

20. I seem to recall something about solar paint.

edit-

NextGen Solar will use nanoscale solar “paint” technology developed by Argonne National Laboratory, with the goal of lowering production costs while increasing efficiency compared to thin-film photovoltaic materials.

Many Roads to Cost-Competitive Solar

From turnkey solar kits to the use of low-cost solar materials, there are many different angles from which to push solar into the competitive energy market. A solar paint that can be economically applied to different surfaces is one solution. The National Renewable Energy Laboratory is already working on a silicon based solar ink, and The University of Texas is developing spray-on solar cells. According to chicagobusiness.com writer Paul Merrion, Argonne’s solar technology can be applied to many types of building surfaces, including windows. It goes on like paint, then dries to form microscopic interconnected solar cells.

Affordable Solar Power in Action

If commercialization proves successful, solar paint and other forms of low-cost solar power will have an impact that goes beyond lowering utility costs for private property owners and renters. Even in today’s market, solar power is helping to bring costs down in the subsidized housing sector. It’s only a matter of time before low cost renewable energy becomes ubiquitous among all facilities owned or subsidized by the government, relieving taxpayers from the budget-sucking burden of fossil fuel utilities.

[Zorra]

88. Wow. Energy producing highways.

Wouldn't harm the environment if the panels were placed over existing roads.

[Lorien]

101. Here's the video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ep4L18zOEYI

[Safetykitten]

21. But that is so......SENSIBLE!

[jtuck004]

23. Unfortunately the loss of electrical power in Japan has shut down some PV factories.

http://www.pv-tech.org/news/energy_supply_the_near_term_problem_for_japanese_pv_supply_chain1


Can't install them if you can't get them. And if they could generate their own power, why are they dependent on nuclear?

[csziggy]

102. Sounds like the perfect time to start producing PV in this country

So we don't have to buy them from other countries.

[jtuck004]

109. You bet! That would help our energy usage AND employ people. eom

[JDPriestly]

178. Why are the factories in Japan and not here?

[vicarofrevelwood]

29. Use Electrolysis of water

to store power in the form of hydrogen and run power generators with this. Who needs a battery all we need are storage tanks.

[paulkienitz]

128. electrolysis is lossy

and hydrogen is leaky. We can store and regenerate power more efficiently and more portably with zinc cells. Reduce to put power in, oxidize to get it out again, and transport energy in solid bulk form, as pellets. This trick can also be done with aluminum. Zinc cells may well be able to power a car better than hydrogen fuel cells can, and anyone who doesn't want to go to a zinc filling station will probably be able to put a zinc reducing machine in their garage, because it's neither big nor expensive.

[hedgehog]

30. Here's an outift trying to do just that:

http://envisionsolar.com/

[Zorra]

39. Wow! how cool is that? But... I'm afraid that's simply impossible! nt

[bongbong]

32. Sorry, it won't happen

In a sane world, it would happen. But rich businessmen make all the decisions now, and they don't own the sun. Thus, it won't happen (in any large scale)

[Zorra]

33. Neutralizing the plutarchy is already in progress. nt

[JDPriestly]

63. I wouldn't be so sure if I were you, bongbong.

A lot of those businessmen are going to lose their shirts on their Japanese investments.

We may be coming into a window in which necessity makes our nation very inventive. This is the sort of challenge that Americans are good at handling.

[bongbong]

70. One can only hope

I've been ripping nuclear power since the 1970s, and talking about solar for the same period. We can hope. These are DEFINITELY interesting times (in the sense of the hackneyed Chinese quotation) we're living in.

[Matariki]

35. So practical and simple you have to wonder what the hold up is.

and I do mean 'hold up'.

[abelenkpe]

36. Company next door has done this

Their entire parking lot is covered in solar panels as well as their roof top. Many of my co-workers who own homes have also covered their roof tops with solar panels and report seeing their meters run backwards. :)
In CA we should also cover highway sound barriers with solar panels. Between wind and solar we could gain much.

I keep getting the response: green technology cannot replace fossil fuels at this time. Yeah, so what? If we never invest in it, it never will. We should cut all subsidies to dead end energy like oil and give it to the energy solutions of the future. Better to have several green solutions filling the gap and start working towards sustainable energy than continue pursuing dirty energy that endangers the environment.

[Occulus]

110. What's the company's name?

I want to go to Google Earth so I can grab a screenie for this thread.

[abelenkpe]

196. BT is the logo on their building

They're in El Segundo off Grand. Most of our other neighbors are defense contractors, but these guys seem cool. :)

Hope that helps!

Drove to kids school today behind an electric vehicle that belonged to another solar panel company. It was encouraging to see.

[Spike89]

37. The real catch is innovation and efficiency

Ironic though it may be, the very fact that we are only beginning to invest somewhat heavily in development of these technologies is perhaps the biggest hurdle we currently face. Even in this thread we have people talking about prototype-level solar roads, new battery types, and a rethinking of the national/regional power grid.
To put my point into concrete terms...it is great to add a solar kit your house with an 8-year payback, a moderate manufacturing footprint, and a 20 year lifespan...But, it isn't so great if there is a reasonable chance that if you wait 1 year, you can get a 4-year payback, minimal footprint, and a 30-year lifespan.
As others have pointed out, the massive lead mining and battery production required for a very rapid conversion to solar are not exactly environmentally friendly. It is also very unclear if we could come close to generating enough power with current solar technology, meaning we'd still need to maintain the grid.
It isn't "gridlock" (sorry for that) but it is the reality of moving to a new technology. We've seen the process more than a few times in the past 150 years or so. Most recently, it was computers. In hindsight, it may seem that everyone had a personal computer overnight, but from the first true computers until the point where more than 1/2 of the people had direct computer access was about 50 years. Even if you started counting from the first true "personal" computer, it was decades before it made economic sense for most businesses and families to invest in the technology.
Solar has promise (just like computers) but the reality is that we're in the very early stages and the technology isn't ready for everyone. Optimal locations, demonstration/proof of concept buildings, and hobbyists are driving this. To speed the process up, the government should at this point be pouring money into research and development. That needs to continue until either solar is an irresistible economic draw to consumers or we stall or at least slow down in achieving better arrays, battery, and distribution schemes.
You simply can't force emerging technology into widespread adoption, the best you can do is encourage the development until the technology forces itself into the market.

[JDPriestly]

65. Spike89. MIT was already heating a house in Massachusetts with

solar energy in 1974. They supplemented it with gas only on very overcast, unfavorable days. That suggests to me that we have actually had pretty close to 50 years to develop solar energy to the point that it is economically viable.

If you remember, Jimmy Carter way back in 1976-1980 was advocating for solar energy. (Please remember also that Jimmy Carter was trained in nuclear technology but promoted solar.)

My husband was a computer technician in the 1950s. I remember the expensive, clumsy computers of the 1980s and early 1990s. The computer industry was able to take off because people bought the early models and enjoyed them in spite of their many flaws.

Sometimes the best way to get a technology going is to start using it. That is what we need to do.

Nuclear energy is not safe, especially out here in California on who knows how many earthquake faults.

We need more funding for solar technology development and production. We need creative ways to get solar technology on roofs in cities like San Diego, Phoenix, Los Angeles and others.

[Spike89]

78. Don't disagree at all!

However, I still stand by the need to develop better solar and the time for wholesale switching to solar isn't quite now. Oh, yes I certainly recall Carter advocating (and getting solar installed on the WH roof)--I also recall that he was unable to get funding through and I recall Reagan removing the solar panels.
I do believe solar (and other "alternative" energy sources) are our future, I was just attempting to explain why implementing new technologies takes time. Here's another example...the Toyota Prius was perhaps the first truly "practical" hybrid car. However, if we'd decreed that everyone immediately scrap traditional vehicles and only first gen Prius' could drive on public roads...well, it would have been a disaster. Prices would have gone crazy because the infrastructure to produce that many batteries still doesn't exist. Efforts would of course have shifted from making second-generation hybrids (and full electric) vehicles to fulfilling the mandated and artificial demand for the first generation. Overall, it is quite conceivable that the effort itself would have used more energy and resources than it would ever save AND would be responsible for setting innovation back years.

[JDPriestly]

114. Many of us here in Southern California would like to have solar

panels on our roofs but cannot afford them, rent our housing or could not get a loan large enough to pay for it. I would like to see some government or private funding that would put panels on the roofs of houses under a plan that did not require the homeowner to fund the installation and purchase of the panels.

[DeSwiss]

40. K&R n/t

[zeemike]

41. Let me carie that a little down stream.

Build a factory in places like Detroit to build the parts necessary to cover those parking lots and roofs...and a plant to produce local generations of electricity....because if you just try to do it without creating the factories you will just wind up making China prosper.

[Dappleganger]

42. Every single federal or state-funded building should produce it's own power.

Every school. Every library. Every courthouse. Every jail.

[SaveAmerica]

44. Why do you hate big business?

:sarcasm:

I'm guessing it's because you love this world and its people.


We were in Germany last year and I fell for the country all over again when I saw that their cute and quaint cottages were covered with solar panels. I was so thrilled to see recycling containers everywhere, even at the train stations. Then we arrived at our American hotel, no recycling. I asked the maid why there was no recycling - she said they did recycle; part of her job was to pick it out of the garbage. Are Americans 'that' simple minded? Embarrassing.

I'm all for your idea and we are hoping to be able to have solar power for our home sometime in the future.

[jacquelope]

45. Bump!!! If we can't sticky this thread then bump it forever! n/t

.

[blackspade]

48. I Likey!

[Ignis]

49. K&R

Nice of you to provide a few ideas on how to fund it; here's hoping people read that far.

[mikeburetta]

50. snow ball effect

Use part of the power saving to build more to save more to build more and let it grow on itself 35 billion would be a good start. Keep the fund growing to do more and more solar geothermal heat pumps. Make it a wpa of modern times train people to get the job done. We electrafied rural area why not do this for the whole country. Giving people jobs that they can be proud of doing making there country a better place for all of us!

[mikeburetta]

55. economic model

we as democrats have to realize that "republicans" dont have a monopoly on economic models we need to push our own for a green energy future. The alternative is a spiral of ever increasing cost dirty energy. Our project is to make green the more economic choice. solor wind and geothermal cut out the need to buy fuel and just leave the maintenence cost. We need to hammer home this point , that is that no mater what if we build new power generation its going to cost bucks but if we dont have to buy coal gas or oil to power things we all save in the long run making energy prices go down over time rather than allways going up!
hamer home the point that its about cost just as hard as repubs do for our side.

[Enthusiast]

159. Hammering home this point

will become more difficult as the GOP sets their sights on de-funding NPR and further consolidating information sources. The dirty fuel industry has invested in a friendly legislature and it is paying off BIG TIME.

[Generic Other]

53. Parking lots would provide a lot of power

what a smart idea

[Lorien]

100. And solar roadways, which have already been developed. nt

[Confusious]

142. In Development. Not practical right now.

Maybe not ever. The material would have to be more durable then concrete.

[Lorien]

161. You obviously didn't watch the video.

The technology is so far into development that GE is investing in it. And yes, it is more durable than concrete.

[Confusious]

164. People invest in things all the time without even

The slightest probability that it will work. That's what the IT bubble of the late 90's was about.

Besides, they can write it off if it doesn't work out.

I heard about this 5 years ago, and he's still in the prototype stage, according to this website:

http://techcrunch.com/2010/08/02/solar-roadways/

[Blue Owl]

54. IT'S TIME

:kick:

[yurbud]

56. k & r

[Cleita]

58. Shading parking lots would protect cars too. n/t

[JDPriestly]

59. It's another beautiful, warm sunshiny day in Los Angeles.

And we don't have solar panels on our roof. Why? Because we cannot afford it. What a waste.

I would be happy to lease my roof space in return for my electricity and maybe a share of whatever is earned on what my roof will produce.

We could do this through the government -- or private companies could develop this resource. The excess energy from my roof could be sold commercially. Why not?

Great idea. Safe and secure.

[apocalypsehow]

66. So, anyone who disagrees with you on "nukes" is automatically a "corporate troll." That's a tidy way

to, uh, err, "debate" the issue, I reckon.... :eyes:

I do agree that we should be doing all we can to bring more solar and wind power resources online. But solving the global warming issue in any serious manner is going to involve more nuclear power plants - lots more nuclear power plants. And soon.

[Zorra]

67. Writing that appears to have been a mistake.

I think I may have scared the fish away.

Posters that have disagreed so far have all been legit.

[apocalypsehow]

68. One thing I think we can definitely agree on is that the situation in Japan been thoroughly botched,

and it's not over yet. I find it unbelievable the manner in which it has been handled, and even those who advocate for nuclear power must realize that any new nuclear power plants need to be held to a level of scrutiny regarding safety above and beyond any other power source.

Also, I believe we can agree that if we cut the Pentagon's budget in half, or even down to a quarter of what it is now, and then reinvest that money in both renewable power sources and research, that would be money better spent than a new aircraft carrier or fifty new 200 million dollar jet fighters.

[SoCalDem]

73. Imagine that every house/building built since 1980

Now imagine that they all had solar built in, and were generating at least SOME of their own power..

The problem (and probably why this was not done)

Owners of power generating facilities make MONEY by selling us the power THEY generate. The have NO interest in having customers become self-sufficient.

Many will say that could never have happened anyway because solar energy is "too hard/too expensive"..

To them I say, LOTS of "stuff" used to be really expensive UNTIL it went mainstream and had millions of people wanting it.. Suddenly, when customers start lining up to buy it, prices decline for the individuals.

By now cars could have been tweaked so that at work they are plugged into outlets embedded in the ground, so they charge up while people are at work/home.. Who knows? maybe even paint could be "solarized"?

Gotta think outside the box to solve the big problems we have..

Energy seems to be one of our BIGGEST problems, no matter the angle of observation.

[harmonicon]

75. Don't you think your solution is to a problem that shouldn't exist?

The problem isn't how the energy is generated, it's that Americans use WAY too much energy. Solar panels on parking lots? How about getting rid of parking lots. Unless you're a farmer, the most environmentally and energy efficient thing you can do is live in a city. Why on earth should every family have their own house to put a solar panel on? Far more energy would be saved by getting people out of residential neighbourhoods where they need to drive and into living situations where they can walk or take public transportation for all of their daily needs. Need to go somewhere else? Take a train.

[Zorra]

80. I use far fewer resources and energy than any city dweller except maybe

maybe for some environmentally conscious homeless people living in San Diego, because I use fossil fuel powered transportation sometimes. I would really like to get an electric car.

I have pretty much lived in the woods or the desert for my entire life, and I don't consider cities safe places in to be. I have had to travel to them to work for short periods of time sometimes. The air and water smell bad to me. There are no animals or fish. I cannot see much of the sky. The primary reason I don't think they are safe may be witnessed by the situation in Japan right now. People are helpless to help themselves because they are dependent on the system. I will, most likely, never be without heat, fuel, food, water or shelter unless I am physically or mentally incapacitated. I don't like concrete and asphalt, you can't grow anything in them. I do not feel a strong connection to the Creator in cities. I would probably rot and die in a city if forced to live in one.

But I am very glad that so many people like to live in cities because if they didn't the earth would be covered in a hard shell. And cities have some interesting cultural things going on. I would prefer that folks that live in cities did not use energy that poses any threat of harm to me or anyone or anything else.

All that aside, I totally agree with you that we (me included) use way too much energy and too many resources. And the whole McMansion thing is an environmental disaster. But my democratic spirit totally recoils at forcing people to live in cities.

A good compromise, I believe, would be to develop our clean energy resources and modes of transportation and use much less energy and way fewer resources at the same time, so that we could both maintain a reasonable standard of comfort and cause less harm to each other and less harm to the environment.

peace

[harmonicon]

91. Who should be the arbiter of "comfort"? You?

You say you don't think people should be forced to live in cities - and I think everyone would agree - but to some extent they are by way of current zoning laws. I just think far more simple things can be done to make communities more energy efficient and independent than dreams of massive energy infrastructure overhauls.

It's not so much that we need a new model or new technology, but need to go back to what was working before. Street cars could be brought back in a lot of places where they used to exist. Laws and tax structures could be put in place to bring back local grocery stores and discourage massive supermarkets which require special commutes to shop at.

As for cities being unsafe, etc. That's really just not the case in most people's experience. I agree that all of the concrete and asphalt can be a problem, but that's better combatted by encouraging rooftop and community gardens and putting city money into parks and greenery than working towards having people drive from their private palaces in the woods in electric cars to solar powered shopping plazas.

[Zorra]

130. Well, I suppose you may be right. And I'm certainly not some kind of arbiter.

Interesting word by the way! You must be very well educated.

Me, I'm just a simple country girl trying to figure out a way to keep me and the kids and the rest of my family and friends from getting poisoned by radiation from faulty damaged nuclear reactors, kind of like what is happening in Japan right now, or from whatever nuclear thingys they use to produce nuclear power or bombs or whatever the nuclear energy producing people do nowadays. I must confess, I really don't know much about nuclear energy, but it does seem to be kind of dangerous when an earthquake or other event damages a nuclear reactor or a nuclear whatever.

I've used solar panels for a long time and they have served me well, and I just thought I would share some ideas that I have thought about over the years after having had the experience of a clean, quiet, and basically free, energy source.

Geez, just thinking about the horrors of slow death by radiation poisoning, and the cancers and leukemia etc. that a person can get from radioactive stuff is in itself not worth having one nuclear reactor.

And now, folks everywhere, and particularly in California in our own country, are very afraid and are thinking of leaving their homes because of a radiation cloud heading towards them.

I guess I just don't think using nuclear energy makes a whole lot of sense because it is so undeniably dangerous.

[harmonicon]

165. I partly agree.

I definitely do think there must be some way for the world to move towards completely renewable energy - it does seem very simple, but I just think it would be much more simple to first consider how we can get the most out of what we are now producing instead of what could happen if there were massive infrastructure overhauls.

As for nuclear power, I suppose it's not the best, but I honestly am no more bothered by it than I am by coal. Mountain top removal mining is destroying lives, communities, and ecosystems in the US RIGHT NOW! It's not just a potential scary problem, but a very real problem. Of course what happens when nuclear pants fail is frightening, but is it as frightening as all of the damage caused by other kinds of energy production, and not when they screw up, but how they work by design?

[JDPriestly]

179. I travel by train a fair amount these days, but I can't carry my groceries on the train.

I still need a car to go to evening meetings. It isn't so simple.

By the way, I love trains.

[harmonicon]

191. You should be able to walk to the grocery store though.

I really think with some simple zoning regulations things like that could become simple facts; no one should live further than walking distance from a grocery store, pharmacy, etc.

[joanbarnes]

76. Ditto for wind power

[hulka38]

77. I don't know

Glen Beck and Rush Limbaugh and all those people who thought Saddam was going to nuke America will ridicule us.

[proud patriot]

79. Totally !

[bongbong]

81. Usual naysayers

"Solar isn't practical yet. Wait a few years." - 1971
"Solar isn't practical yet. Wait a few years." - 1981
"Solar isn't practical yet. Wait a few years." - 1991
"Solar isn't practical yet. Wait a few years." - 2001
"Solar isn't practical yet. Wait a few years." - 2011

BTW, a bunch of small solar companies started in the 70s especially after the first oil crisis in 1973. Some of these were hippie engineers, others were by ex-aerospace engineers no longer having a job with NASA, etc. Guess what happened to most of them? They were bought by oil companies. The first order of business for the companies was to reduce the R&D budget to zero.

[Lorien]

97. Yep

[Enthusiast]

160. You beat me to it.

:rofl:

[Nevernose]

83. Start with schools, post offices, and other government buildings

It costs a lot, but those are buildings that taxpayers will be paying the utilities on for a long time. They'll pay for themselves pretty quickly, freeing up money that's now being burned on coal (and some rich coal executive's salary).

And build them in the titular order. It's more politically expedient to start with "the children," plus the schools usually aren't operated or staffed at full capacity during the sunniest summer months, thus making the solar systems cost neutral that much faster.

[Cherchez la Femme]

84. Stop making sense!

Just stop it!
It's un-American!


:cry:

[stuntcat]

85. It's sad we can't go back to 1970 and do this

I mean it, sad...

Where would humanity be now if we'd learned to use renewables and didn't need to fight for fossil fuels or take chances with nuclear? OMG what a mind-blowingly hard question.

[texanwitch]

95. I think about that also.

No oil presidents, but progessive Democrats.

[Arugula Latte]

118. Can we go back in time and prevent the birth of Ronald Reagan?

Pleeease?!

[YellowRubberDuckie]

87. They just had breakthrough with solar power...

...to make it more affordable and easier to maintain.
http://solar.coolerplanet.com/News/19939434-mit-reports-significant-solar-energy-breakthrough.aspx
I just really hope they do it and push it. We need to use the sun and wind and get rid of fossil fuels. If for no other reason than for national security. Don't they realize that our national security and economy are in the hands of people who HATE US?
Duckie

[Confusious]

148. An announcement does not make something practical.

First you need to figure out a reliable industrial process to make billions, if not trillions, of nanotubes in a reliable size and length.

Current use and application of nanotubes has mostly been limited to the use of bulk nanotubes, which is a mass of rather unorganized fragments of nanotubes.

Then you need an industrial process to make the cells. Making something in a lab and rolling something out to the public is VERY different process.

Not saying it's not possible, just not going to happening tomorrow.

[truedelphi]

187. The nation of Germany has risen to the challenge.

They spent a lot of money some eight or ten years back on large scale solar cell purchase, and also on the manufacturing of said solar cells. During that same time period, we in the USA were dressing our young people in military uniforms and sending them and two trillion bucks off to Iraq.

As a result, the German prime minister is suspending operations at any power plants that have a troublesome record. And possibly getting their nation out of nuclear all together.

While we are locked in, due to tall the naysayers, and to all the politics of the Power Elite who keep their lobbyists pulling tax credits for solar out of the equation, and who see to it that we are spending our money on military equipment rather than energy alternatives.
Our nation is falling into the bottom of the barrel when it comes to making our society energy efficient, non-polluting and productive.

We have become a totally destructive nation.

[Confusious]

189. They're just going to buy their power from the french.

You think they're going to make up the difference in renewables when they only get 2% of their power from solar?

[truedelphi]

197. Well on the other hand, at least none of their citizens will be seeing any

Blue Air.

www.tinyrevolution.com

Both of today's top two stories.

[Confusious]

198. Uh, how close is Germany to France? nt

[glitch]

90. It would be awesome except let's use biogas from sewage treatment plants

rather than
"Back the systems up with community generators that are fueled by natural gas"

We don't need no fracking "natural" gas.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bioenergy_village
http://www.powermag.com/renewables/waste_to_energy/3226.html

K & R

[LiberalFighter]

94. Paint all parking lots white or use material that is lighter color.

[Lorien]

96. For the trolls:

[donheld]

103. Put a big wind turbine in front of Rush Limpheads mouth

[cyberpj]

105. Aw hell, put it up his arse! n/t.

[donheld]

113. maybe one at each end

:hi: :D

[sce56]

107. KPFK 90.7FM Los Angeles is raising funds to do that!

I sent them a donation
http://www.kpfk.org/press-releases/4232-kpfks-going-solar-project.html


From there web site

With your tax-deductible donation today, we start “greening” our operation at KPFK Radio through the installation of a solar canopy in the parking lot. Not only do we create an off-grid energy source, but we show our neighbors the value of committing to the environment through renewable energy. KPFK’s solar canopy will be a capital improvement, increasing the value of our facility.
Ed Begley Jr. On KPFK going solar, Ed Begley says,
“I know that solar works, because it's been powering my house and charging my car since 1990. Thank you, KPFK for leading the way yet again by going solar”
Dr. Michio Kaku is Professor of Theoretical Physics specializing in string field theory at the City University of New York. Kaku is also a well known futurist, popularizer of science, best-selling author and media broadcaster and presenter. His radio show “Explorations” is featured on multiple Pacifica Radio stations including KPFK 90.7 in Los Angeles, and WBAI 99.5 New York City. Michio calls KPFK’s solar endeavor a “worthy project.”
Once our solar canopy is up and running you will be able to monitor your contribution. Deck Monitoring will be providing us with an online monitoring service similar to Americas First Solar Highway .
This service will allow you to see total offsets of CO2, total energy generated, and much more during the life span of the solar canopy, which is expected to last 50 years.

KPFK needs to raise $75,545

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS ABOUT OUR SOLAR PROJECT…
Why solar?
The advantages of solar energy and other renewable power sources are clear: greater independence from imported fossil fuels, a cleaner environment, diversity of power sources, and relief from the volatility of energy prices. All over the world, solar energy systems have reduced the need to build more carbon-spewing fossil-fueled power plants. They have become a critical weapon in the battle against global warming. As the cost of solar technologies has come down, solar is moving into the mainstream and growing worldwide at 40-50% annually.
Why is solarizing a worthwhile goal for KPFK?
Raising funds to purchase a solar energy system is a powerful and direct way for us to help protect the environment and make a long-lasting commitment to the planet's future. By our actions we hope to encourage the adoption of solar power and create awareness about renewable energies and the need to save the environment.
How does solarizing align with the Pacifica Mission?
The Pacifica Mission underscores the importance of self-sufficiency. By getting 31% of our energy from the sun we will become a little more self-sustaining. We will be engaging in a project that will help the environment and by highlighting our programs that look at the environment and renewable energies as it relates to politics, economic problems, and the future.
Our web page will also offer resources to reduce ones carbon footprint and information on how to go solar to the community we serve.
Is it the right time for solarization?
Yes, rebates and incentives will cover 45% of the cost of the solar system. Rebates and incentives are projected to drop 14.3% next year and possibly much more in the coming years. It would be to KPFK’s advantage to utilize those funds to minimize the cost of solarizing.
Is solar energy appropriate for KPFK?
KPFK stands to be the first public radio station in Los Angeles to power its facilities with power from the sun. By becoming the first, we hope to set an example for our community and listeners. The system will have paid for itself and the parking lot in 11 years with the energy savings. In 25 years (half the system’s life expectancy) it will have nearly paid for itself 3 times over.

[ThoughtCriminal]

112. Payson (AZ) Schools has done this

http://www.paysonroundup.com/news/2010/dec/28/more-gila-county-schools-moving-grid/

Parking lots at the high school and bus yard - and playgrounds at the elementary schools.

Not the hottest spot in Arizona, but the added shade is welcome there too.

[Aranell Calle]

115. This is freequin brilliant!

It is such a win/win/win that it makes me think only the power mongers would oppose it!

[Zorra]

122. Welcome to DU, AC!

:hi:
Thank you, but it's nothing brilliant at all.

It's just a little common sense.

[DirkGently]

116. Sounds like a worthy start, anyway. In a sane world, we'd be doing this already.

[AtheistCrusader]

119. Everything boils back to the fact I can't afford these solar cells right now.

My power consumption is coming DOWN to meet a solar cell wattage I can afford, faster than the price of the cells is coming down to meet my current consumption. Not a bad thing in and of itself, but diminishing returns at some point.

Subsidies on the cells and inverters would be an excellent boost.

[cascadiance]

149. Initial cost of investment is the big barrier... Germany has worked a lot on this problem...

in areas like Frieburg where they have become almost totally solar powered cities. By putting in laws to help incentivize financing so that for home owners it becomes a no brainer to invest in it, the way the up front costs are born, and where they ultimately wind up with, and who benefits down the road so that those taking the burden initially ultimately benefit from things like the added energy put on the grid, etc. then you can have a win / win situation.

I think also, especially in states like California, where a lot of people rent, you have to find a way to incentivize home owners who rent those homes to put in solar power panels. Currently most don't care, as the burden of paying for power is passed on to the renter, and they don't have to pay for it themselves. And the renter has no interest in making any kind of long term investment. If good ways can be found to help rental unit owners to switch their buildlings to have solar power, and not disrupt the lives of renters too much too while this is being done, and make it so that both home owners and renters benefit from the deployment, that would also help get more deployment of solar too. This probably applies to buildings that are leased to businesses too.

[demigoddess]

123. I was beginning to think i was the only one who was thinking

like this. We could build houses with their own built-in power systems. There would be no black outs as long as the sun came up. I lived in texas for many years, it would be a perfect place for solar. I lived in another state that has sun 360 days out of the year, why don't they have solar on all roofs?? Some back up batteries in the garage and an electric car that you can charge overnight or on weekends means that you do not have electric bills, gasoline bills, and you could run the air conditioning as much as you want in the hot season. The last summer we spent in texas, we were keeping the house hot to save on costs. I suffered from heat exhaustion and was glad to move to a cooler climate. Texas, in those days, was a good place to live if you could afford air conditioning set at a proper level.

[Sirveri]

124. coal/oil/gas/nuke = 88.28% of electric power.

All figures peak summer load 2008.
8.17% is hydro
2.65% is wind
0.15% is solar
0.75% is biomass/geothermal/garbage burning/other stuff

Actually garbage incineration produces 3.37GW (peak summer) which is more than the .837GW produced from PV solar using high end estimates, adding solar thermal (0.53GW) pumps it to 1.367GW which isn't even half the amount we get just from burning garbage.

Not saying it's not doable, but it's probably not going to be fast.

[boppers]

125. Yah for special interests!

"hot sunny areas of the western US with solar panels."

And the rest of the country?

"centralized battery banks"

Gee, no massive environmental problem possible there, right?

"batteries are recyclable as well as refurbishable"

:rofl:

"the $35 billion they're going to give to the nuclear industry"

Loan guarantees aren't money until there's a loan default.

"We could become much less dependent on the oil industry plutarchs."

What, are solar energy 'plutarchs' better?

"Way less filthy air and water from toxic waste generated by the petroleum industry."

Show me a clean solar cell process. Just one. Of course, maybe your point is that "it's dirty and destroys the environment and makes us dependent on other sources, but it's different!"

+1 for fleshing out ideas, -1 for not realizing how corrupt the energy industry is. Solar is just as craven, and contemptible, as wind, natural gas, nuclear, coal, biomass, oil, and the whole lot of them.

[LAGC]

129. Well said, boppers.

This is just becoming ridiculous. Rosy-tinted glasses is an understatement with these people.

The sheer amount of capital required and all the dirty waste by-products from deploying solar/batteries on such a massive scale to handle all of our nation's energy needs is just unfathomable.

MAYBE with a few major breakthroughs in battery capacity and manufacturing processes we can re-examine wide-scale solar again, but in the meantime the President is absolutely right -- we need nuclear power, if we are serious about moving away from our dependence on fossil fuels and preventing global warming.

[Zorra]

132. Finally! Hello there! I have been waiting all night for y'all!

Where have you been, and why did you have to wait until fucking 2 AM?

I could start with telling you something you already damn well know, that electricity is easily transmissible over long distances. Which, as you know, means it can be sent from Tucson to Bangor. Or that batteries really are refurbishable and recyclable, but you already know that. It's an easily researchable fact.

You really need to do better, it's embarrassing. I've seen much more sophisticated work here.

Nice touch with the loan guarantees. That really is true.

So now, why don't you cut the strawman innuendo, and provide some facts to back up your *cough*porate bullshit?

Nice try, but your technique is primitive and transparent.

Yawn. Already got the T-shirt.

They went out of style during the Bu*h administration.

[boppers]

135. Damn. Sent and then failed.

"Tucson to Bangor"

Electricity is lossy. Period.

I don't really give a rats ass about the games, but I refuse to argue physics with somebody who can't explain why a 10 lb weight falls faster than a 1 lb body.

[Lorien]

162. Um, solar panels work quite well in the rest of the Nation

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/techinnovations/2006-07-30-solar-laundromat_x.htm

And yes, we know that that's been your cheer for a long time now.

[Zorra]

171. Rats. I was really hoping to become enlightened about photovoltaics systems

from credible information gathered by an elite scholar/genius/expert in the field of renewable energy.

So I thought I would save you the trouble. Here is a link to many comprehensive articles and papers regarding the use of photovoltaic energy and current potential problems and benefits associated with the production, use, and recycling of phototovoltaic systems.

Enjoy!

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&q=related:QcdUIc3tJGYJ:scholar.google.com/&um=1&ie=UTF-8&ei=jz2CTY_KFK2y0QGq9KHeCA&sa=X&oi=science_links&ct=sl-related&resnum=8&sqi=2&ved=0CFMQzwIwBw

[boppers]

180. Nice link. :)

Interesting stuff to read.

[paulkienitz]

126. we'll probably end up doing this no matter how hard we try not to

because under any other scenario, the supply of electricity without fossil fuels is just not going to meet demand.

We'll still have to take a big hit economically relative to the times of cheap abundant oil.

[upi402]

131. Cool & sunny is even more efficient

Heat reduces energy generation a bit. So put them up north too.

The equipment costs a bit up front, but the source is free. Oil is VERY expensive, even just in terms of lives lost grabiing at it. The war machine doesn't want DER's (Distributed Energy Resources).

[Confusious]

141. Are you talking about solar? nt

[upi402]

174. Yes, in response to the OP

Solar is less efficient in hot sun as opposed to the same sun level in colder temperatures. Sun = photons hitting, more sun = more photons, so people think hot sun is better. But colder sun is more efficient.

[Confusious]

190. Doesn't mean they're going to produce more power.

Just means instead of the 20% of power *you could get* when they are cold (Which is the usual efficiency of solar cells BTW), you get 19%. Clouds and darkness will affect it more.

[indimuse]

133. KNR! n/t

[Norrin Radd]

134. kr

[CommonSensePLZ]

138. Money = 90% of mankind's problems, solution to 0 /nt

[paparush]

139. Bernie Sanders - The 10 Million Solar Roof Act of 2010

s3460-111
Introduced - 2010-06-07T12:00:00Z
Short Title- 10 Million Solar Roofs Act of 2010
Official Title- A bill to require the Secretary of Energy to provide funds to States for rebates, loans, and other incentives to eligible individuals or entities for the purchase and installation of solar energy systems for properties located in the United States, and for other purposes.
Keywords- Energy,Alternative and renewable resources,Energy research,Government lending and loan guarantees,Lighting and heating,Research and development,Residential rehabilitation and home repair
Summary- 9/27/2010--Reported to Senate amended. 10 Million Solar Roofs Act of 2010 - Directs the Secretary of Energy (DOE) to establish a program under which the Secretary shall provide competitive grants to states, Indian tribes, and local governments to provide rebates, loans, or other incentives to eligible participants for the purchase and installation of solar energy systems for properties located in the United States. Requires the Secretary to implement criteria for awarding such grants that: (1) provides the maximum leverage of federal funds; (2) provides for the maximum deployment of solar energy; (3) ensures that grants are awarded to a diversity of geographic locations and recipients with different population sizes; (4) provides no less than 2% of the funds available to Indian tribes and consortia of Indian tribes; and (5) provides a preference for grant recipients that have established and maintained, or that agree to commit to establish and maintain, standards and policies to overcome barriers to distributed generation (including interconnection and net metering). Authorizes the use of funds received to expand or establish a solar rebate program, a solar loan program, a solar performance-based incentive program, or another solar incentive program, solar deployment program or project, or innovative solar financing program as determined by the Secretary. Requires a grant recipient to: (1) certify that funds will be used to supplement, expand, or create new programs and to deploy an increased quantity of solar energy systems; and (2) submit to the Secretary an implementation plan that contains projections for solar energy systems deployment, data regarding the number of eligible participants that are assisted under existing applicable state and local programs, and projections for additional solar energy system deployment and the number of additional eligible participants covered. Authorizes the Secretary to specify the type and capacity of solar energy system and type of deployment or incentive program for which the grant funds are made available. Makes each eligible entity receiving funds responsible for 20% of the amount of the provided funds. Provides that a participant who receives a rebate under this Act shall not be eligible for a rebate for expenditures for installation of a renewable energy system in connection with a dwelling unit or small business under the Energy Policy Act of 2005. Limits the aggregate value of the grants, rebates, and tax credits provided to an eligible participant to 50% of the cost to the purchaser of the purchase and installation. Sets a goal of installing distributed solar energy systems on not fewer than 10 million properties located in the United States by December 31, 2021. Requires the Secretary to report to Congress on recommendations in achieving such goal. Authorizes appropriations for FY2012-FY2021.
Sponsor- Bernard Sanders (I) ID:S000033
Cosponsors Count (16) Merkley(D) , Leahy(D) , Menendez(D) , Kaufman(D) , Cardin(D) , Cantwell(D) , Boxer(D) , Stabenow(D) , Kerry(D) , Specter(D) , Whitehouse(D) , Harkin(D) , Gillibrand(D) , Casey(D) , Shaheen(D) , Lautenberg(D)
Last Action- Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 618. 2010-09-27T12:00:00Z calendar
Vetoed- false
Enacted- false

[paparush]

140. Bernie Sanders - The 10 Million Solar Roof Act of 2010

s3460-111
Introduced - 2010-06-07T12:00:00Z
Short Title- 10 Million Solar Roofs Act of 2010
Official Title- A bill to require the Secretary of Energy to provide funds to States for rebates, loans, and other incentives to eligible individuals or entities for the purchase and installation of solar energy systems for properties located in the United States, and for other purposes.
Keywords- Energy,Alternative and renewable resources,Energy research,Government lending and loan guarantees,Lighting and heating,Research and development,Residential rehabilitation and home repair
Summary- 9/27/2010--Reported to Senate amended. 10 Million Solar Roofs Act of 2010 - Directs the Secretary of Energy (DOE) to establish a program under which the Secretary shall provide competitive grants to states, Indian tribes, and local governments to provide rebates, loans, or other incentives to eligible participants for the purchase and installation of solar energy systems for properties located in the United States. Requires the Secretary to implement criteria for awarding such grants that: (1) provides the maximum leverage of federal funds; (2) provides for the maximum deployment of solar energy; (3) ensures that grants are awarded to a diversity of geographic locations and recipients with different population sizes; (4) provides no less than 2% of the funds available to Indian tribes and consortia of Indian tribes; and (5) provides a preference for grant recipients that have established and maintained, or that agree to commit to establish and maintain, standards and policies to overcome barriers to distributed generation (including interconnection and net metering). Authorizes the use of funds received to expand or establish a solar rebate program, a solar loan program, a solar performance-based incentive program, or another solar incentive program, solar deployment program or project, or innovative solar financing program as determined by the Secretary. Requires a grant recipient to: (1) certify that funds will be used to supplement, expand, or create new programs and to deploy an increased quantity of solar energy systems; and (2) submit to the Secretary an implementation plan that contains projections for solar energy systems deployment, data regarding the number of eligible participants that are assisted under existing applicable state and local programs, and projections for additional solar energy system deployment and the number of additional eligible participants covered. Authorizes the Secretary to specify the type and capacity of solar energy system and type of deployment or incentive program for which the grant funds are made available. Makes each eligible entity receiving funds responsible for 20% of the amount of the provided funds. Provides that a participant who receives a rebate under this Act shall not be eligible for a rebate for expenditures for installation of a renewable energy system in connection with a dwelling unit or small business under the Energy Policy Act of 2005. Limits the aggregate value of the grants, rebates, and tax credits provided to an eligible participant to 50% of the cost to the purchaser of the purchase and installation. Sets a goal of installing distributed solar energy systems on not fewer than 10 million properties located in the United States by December 31, 2021. Requires the Secretary to report to Congress on recommendations in achieving such goal. Authorizes appropriations for FY2012-FY2021.
Sponsor- Bernard Sanders (I) ID:S000033
Cosponsors Count (16) Merkley(D) , Leahy(D) , Menendez(D) , Kaufman(D) , Cardin(D) , Cantwell(D) , Boxer(D) , Stabenow(D) , Kerry(D) , Specter(D) , Whitehouse(D) , Harkin(D) , Gillibrand(D) , Casey(D) , Shaheen(D) , Lautenberg(D)
Last Action- Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 618. 2010-09-27T12:00:00Z calendar
Vetoed- false
Enacted- false

[Le Taz Hot]

145. . . .

:applause:

[Teaser]

146. If you put solar cells on nearly every structure though

what would be the collateral heating?

That's a lot of absorption of energy. Does the panel act like a blackbody? And how much heat radiation would then be dumped into the atmosphere?

Has anyone modeled this?

[BonnieJW]

150. Last year

I read an article that told of all new high-rise buildings in Chicago having wind turbines added to each corner. Now cover the roof with solar panels and you've got a super duper energy package.

[CottonBear]

152. I'm sure President Carter would agree. He installed solar panels on the White House roof

which Reagan promptly removed as soon as he took over. :(

[negativenihil]

153. solar power

If i ever have the means to build my own house from scratch, solar will be a big factor, as well as a modern wind turbine of sorts

[yellowcanine]

154. "OK, corporate trolls......" Is the flame bait really necessary? Detracts from an otherwise

thoughtful post. Think about it.

[Lorien]

163. Mentioning solar power always brings out the usual suspects

which, not surprisingly, defend everything pro corporate profits/ anti worker and/ or environment as "prudent". They are the ones who seek to distract from any thoughtful post on the subject. May as well call them on it up front.

[yellowcanine]

169. So then we will never improve the dialogue if that is the attitude.

I disagree with that.

[Zorra]

172. See post #67.

Before I explain, I want to use the definition below to define what I am referring to as propaganda:

"the particular doctrines or principles propagated by an organization or movement"

"information, ideas, or rumors deliberately spread widely to help or harm a person, group, movement, institution, nation. etc."

In this case, the organizations I am referring to are basically the nuclear and fossil fuel industry.

Propaganda is easily identifiable, and there are identifiable techniques that can be used to sway peoples opinions and lead to the adoption of ideas that may result in actual harm to those who adopt the ideas of the propagandist, who in our case would be representatives (PR people, marketers, ) of wealthy, powerful energy industries that desire to sway the opinions of a significant percentage of the public with false or incomplete information and/or direct or indirect verbal or written attacks on persons presenting opposing ideas or the the opposing ideas themselves, in order that they may continue to profit despite the fact that there is significant evidence that methods of production and widespread use of their product causes relatively generalized physical harm to individuals and the environment.

An obvious, simple example: "Using nuclear energy is safe". Their meaning of safe is relative. It could mean that no one is ever harmed at all. It could also mean it is safe compared to the use of automobiles, the use of which has caused much more harm than associated risks of producing and using nuclear energy although thousands of people a year die from radiation related diseases and that far fewer people died from the Chernobyl event than automobiles have killed. etc

The nuke/petroleum industries have been using propaganda to curtail the usage of alternative energy systems for many years, and support politicians that will legislate in their interests and against the general interests and well-being of their human constituents.

The widespread use of the internet/blogging by individuals as a form of communication has made it much more difficult for the aforementioned industries to contain factual information that is counter to their interests and which may eventually lead to loss of profits for their industries. They have enormous monetary wealth, and they monitor information sources in order to interject their propaganda into discussions for their purposes, which I have described above.

The net monitors these industries use are far more knowledgeable and skillful than your average freeper troll and can identify the most vulnerable areas of a discussion within which to interject redirection/disruption techniques. So these types of trolls are often identifiable because they fit a pattern, just like freeper trolls (you can often spot them on the first post, but some of them manage to not get busted because there is nothing that can be done as long as they stay within the guidelines of the blog/forum they frequent) generally fit a pattern.

Which, finally, leads me to the point of this painful, pedantic diatribe:

No one that is posting their honest opinions and beliefs and furthering constructive discourse needs to worry about being suspected of having nefarious intentions when posting. Providing credible sources of information to back up opinions and beliefs almost always indicates sincere motivations in promoting constructive discourse also, but is not necessary.

Still, although what you called "flamebait" was not written to deter sincere members of DU from posting, I see your point and am pretty sure it was a mistake on my part to post it.

Peace

[Maineman]

156. Perfect solution, and roof-top wind chargers for the windy northeast and midwest,

Check out the new vertical axis wind charger by Sauer Energy (SENY.OB).
Disclosure: I recently bought some stock in this small development level company.

[Maineman]

157. Perfect solution. And for the windy midwest and northeast,

Check out the new vertical axis wind charger by Sauer Energy (SENY.OB).
Disclosure: I recently bought some stock in this small development level company.

[Recursion]

158. We don't have enough Vanadium

And extracting that much would cancel out the environmental benefits of doing it.

[glinda]

166. gas=fracking. I say just go solar and any other way cleaner and safer.

[kestrel91316]

167. We need massive increases in public transit subsidies, too.

The oil we import should be used in manufacturing and, where we have to, electricity production (so as not to need nukes). Not to move individuals about on a whim.

[xxqqqzme]

173. Our beach city in SoCal

is doing this at city hall and the central library parking lots. With the lack of shaded parking at both locations, those solar panels will provide welcomed relief during hot sunny days.

[BrklynLiberal]

175. We coulda been contenders...if only we had started doing this when Carter was President....

and of course, if President Gore had been allowed to take his proper place in the White House in 2000.

:cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry:

[Mojeoux]

176. Let's DO it!!! ASAP

I like the way you think!

[GTurck]

192. Great great idea...

I also thought that those covered parking lots should be planted with native forbs that will soak up some of the CO2 and cool the heat island effect even more.
Where do we find engineers to do the designs?