Solar Power, now!

[daenku32]

I work in an industrial park that has huge warehouse type buildings, and not a lot of pollution. I have no doubt the park uses plenty of electricity though. Most of which is probably made by the coal plant in our city.

While Indiana is not exactly a great place as far as sunlight (compared to pretty much every other place in the states), a nice government subsidied program to build huge solar collectors on all of the over 100,000 square foot buildings.

I believe if the government worked with large manufacturers they could easily agree to build few hundred square miles of solar paneling and it's equipment at relatively low per unit cost, thereby reducing solar energy products to commodity easily afforded by individuals.

Using mass production and vast empty spaces above warehouse type buildings would generate cheap and invisible energy solution, not to mention thousands of jobs.

What better time to get this project going than during the fall, so that by next summer we'll be enjoying it's benefits.

While coal would still need to be used especially during winter, the plants could use the low consumption summers to maintain and upgrade their systems.

[username]

I am not up to speed on the latest developments in solar power, but from what I read in the past they are inefficent and don't last long before requiring replacement. Has that changed?

[daenku32]

Originally Posted by username

I am not up to speed on the latest developments in solar power, but from what I read in the past they are inefficent and don't last long before requiring replacement. Has that changed?

The quick searching I've done on the life expectancy is up to 20 years.

I figure with solar power innovation still running fast, the dying panels could be replaced with new and improved ones.

[Manny]

How does one make a solar electricity, uh, whatever it is. Cell? Generator? Collector?

[Libertarian]

Originally Posted by daenku32

I believe if the government worked with large manufacturers they could easily agree to build few hundred square miles of solar paneling and it's equipment at relatively low per unit cost, thereby reducing solar energy products to commodity easily afforded by individuals.

Using mass production and vast empty spaces above warehouse type buildings would generate cheap and invisible energy solution, not to mention thousands of jobs.

1. If it could be done cheaply, private industry would be doing it NOW. The profit incentive is a strong one.

2. Producing cheap energy AND creating thousands of jobs?? Who's going to pay all those people?

[Mark]

Originally Posted by Libertarian

1. If it could be done cheaply, private industry would be doing it NOW. The profit incentive is a strong one.

2. Producing cheap energy AND creating thousands of jobs?? Who's going to pay all those people?

#1 makes no sense. Using that argument, there would never be any new technology, because no one is doing it now.

[fishbob]

Originally Posted by Libertarian

1. If it could be done cheaply, private industry would be doing it NOW. The profit incentive is a strong one.

Economy of scale is likely a roadblock to the warehouse owners. Each warehouse owner is likely to only be able to make enough solar power for some small percentage of his needs so the effort is not economic - whereas the power generated by several hundred warehouses might be significant, but again not particularly beneficial to any individual owner.

Power companies are typically sort of not private industry.

[joe1347]

It doesn't take much searching around to see that solar power is somewhere between 10X to 30X more expensive than existing coal-fired power plants (electricity). Plus there is actually a lot of coal available. So ignoring transportation fuel shortages - we may be ok for electricty for a long time - with one catch. Global Warming. If real, and it's starting to look like it is - burning all of that coal may not be such a good idea.

http://www.its.caltech.edu/~mmrc/nsl/Energy_Notes.pdf

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by Mark

#1 makes no sense. Using that argument, there would never be any new technology, because no one is doing it now.

This answer makes no sense! The argument has no such implications at all.

[Manny]

In fairness, I can see where Mark is coming from. daenku32 was calling for the government to "work with" large manufacturers to achieve some future goal. "Work with" can include subsidizing otherwise uneconomic activities, including the funding of research to bring costs down.

It should pretty much go without saying that I don't agree with that, but it is a valid point of view and one which can't fairly be contradicted by saying that if it were profitable it would already have happened. The proposition is that the unprofitable part would be funded by me and thee.

[Mark]

Originally Posted by WildCat

This answer makes no sense! The argument has no such implications at all.

" If it could be done cheaply, private industry would be doing it NOW. The profit incentive is a strong one."

You're correct in a way; the quote doesn't imply anything. It says very directly that if it were possible to do something cheaply, it would already be happening. That is absurd, Libertarian dogma.

Private industry has often required government assistance. I mean, just look at the Bush Administration! They love to kick money to private industry. Too bad the Bushes don't own stock in solar power, though.

[Libertarian]

This is the same old American socialist utopian nonsense. Someone decides that something is beneficial, but for some reason the market is not providing it. What to do? Why, use someone else's money to do it for you. Never mind that the entrepreneurs who know how to get things done have decided that there are better ways to invest resources. Never mind that the capital the government needs to help in this enterprise is taken from taxpayers at the point of a gun.

Ugh. Haven't the last 90 years taught us anything??

[joe1347]

Originally Posted by Libertarian

This is the same old American socialist utopian nonsense. Someone decides that something is beneficial, but for some reason the market is not providing it. What to do? Why, use someone else's money to do it for you. Never mind that the entrepreneurs who know how to get things done have decided that there are better ways to invest resources. Never mind that the capital the government needs to help in this enterprise is taken from taxpayers at the point of a gun.

Ugh. Haven't the last 90 years taught us anything??

You're right if Global Warming is treehugger alarmist B.S. Why spend greater than 10X for electricity that we can get from what appears to be readily available and large resources (coal).

But if global warming is real (as in dire consequences real) - I don't see how capitalism (the free market) will save us?

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by Mark

" If it could be done cheaply, private industry would be doing it NOW. The profit incentive is a strong one."

You're correct in a way; the quote doesn't imply anything. It says very directly that if it were possible to do something cheaply, it would already be happening. That is absurd, Libertarian dogma.

Private industry has often required government assistance. I mean, just look at the Bush Administration! They love to kick money to private industry. Too bad the Bushes don't own stock in solar power, though.

Don't you think that private industry would love to find a way to make cheap, efficient solar cells? That market would be worth billions of $$. No doubt, big money has already been spent looking for a way. Hasn't happened yet, obviously.

Perhaps you're just being picky, would you feel better if the statement was "If it were currently possible to do something cheaply, it would already be happening"?

But I'm against making it "cheaper" by subsidizing it w/ tax dollars. That would likely stifle R&D efforts by private industry, and siphon off money from more useful andeavors.

[Mark]

Originally Posted by WildCat

Don't you think that private industry would love to find a way to make cheap, efficient solar cells? That market would be worth billions of $$. No doubt, big money has already been spent looking for a way. Hasn't happened yet, obviously.

Perhaps you're just being picky, would you feel better if the statement was "If it were currently possible to do something cheaply, it would already be happening"?

But I'm against making it "cheaper" by subsidizing it w/ tax dollars. That would likely stifle R&D efforts by private industry, and siphon off money from more useful andeavors.

More useful than being energy independent?!?!?!?!

Whether fans of the status quo like it or not, our energy future---long term---cannot rely on oil; it is a finite resource. Plus, when prediciting technological advances, it is nearly always the people who think we are at the peak of any possible development who are wrong. It's close to being a law of nature.

[joe1347]

Originally Posted by WildCat

Don't you think that private industry would love to find a way to make cheap, efficient solar cells? That market would be worth billions of $$. No doubt, big money has already been spent looking for a way. Hasn't happened yet, obviously.

Perhaps you're just being picky, would you feel better if the statement was "If it were currently possible to do something cheaply, it would already be happening"?

But I'm against making it "cheaper" by subsidizing it w/ tax dollars. That would likely stifle R&D efforts by private industry, and siphon off money from more useful andeavors.

Hopefully you're correct and we will not need non-polluting (greenhouse gas) solar energy until the coal runs out (100+ years). But as I mentioned earlier - if global warming is a real threat to our (american) way of life (say by 2050) - then the US Government is criminally irresponsible for not starting a Manhattan style project to develop "clean" energy and/or finding an efficient way to sequester carbon. Obviously this (global warming) is an extremely controversial issue that doesn't seem to have a straight unambiguous answer yet. I certainly don't begin to understand it. However, it seems that discussing the pure economics of alternative energy (cost only) may be missing the real issue (global warming). Here's a few university links on the topic that may be of interest.

http://smalley.rice.edu/

http://www.its.caltech.edu/~mmrc/nsl/Energy_Notes.pdf

If you're interested in the lasted Deparment of Energy "thinking" on Solar Energy - the following link may be of interest. The report is obviously very long - but the first few pages are packed with some interesting information.

http://www.sc.doe.gov/bes/reports/files/SEU_rpt.pdf

[daenku32]

Originally Posted by Libertarian

1. If it could be done cheaply, private industry would be doing it NOW. The profit incentive is a strong one.

2. Producing cheap energy AND creating thousands of jobs?? Who's going to pay all those people?

1. This is a massive scale proposition, involving large manufacturers setting everything up from almost nothing. It would require huge investment that under normal private industry standards would be a large high risk investment with low minimal net profits.

2. Instead of buying coal, oil, uranium and paying for enviromental clean up and storage, that money would be used to employ people.

For libertarians: Current energy production is already subsidiced. If you plan to use numbers, consider that and the cost reduction high volume mass production would provide compared to current solar cost.

Clean air is not a very tradable commodity, yet. (Scientific American talks about this). And until it becomes, private businesses are not going to invest in it. Air pollution is a tragedy of commons currently fixable only with government interference (ie. regulation and programs).

[NoZed Avenger]

Efficiency of the cells means more than higher cost.

Has anyone run the math to see what the surface area of solar collectors/cells would have to be in order to generate even 10% of our national energy needs?

I'll try to do some looking later, but my memory was that current technology would require the panels to cover the entire surface of a small-to-medium state in its entirety. I don't trust my memory on that item, but I do question the practicality -- at the current level of efficiency.

[davefoc]

Do those industrial buildings have skylights? There might be some low lying fruit there to pick if they don't.

Thanks to Libertarian for nicely explaining why getting the government involved is unlikely to make things better.

If the goverment decided at some point that global warming caused by human created activity was a significant threat it could simply raise taxes of hydrocarbons to discourage their use. From this stand point coal is one of the worst fuels I believe as it has one of the highest percentages of CO2 created for the energy generated. Other fuels like oil get a significant portion of their energy content from hydrogen which creates water when it is burned.

I probably am not quite as opposed to all government involvement as Libertarian, but I would restrict it to goverment subsidies of alternative fuel research. If the energy source is economically beneficial the market will use it. The situation with biodiesel comes to mind. The proponents say it makes economic sense and the opponents say it doesn't. The only way to know is to stop subsidising it and see if people continue to make it.

[Mark]

Originally Posted by davefoc

The only way to know is to stop subsidising it and see if people continue to make it.

Will we be doing that with oil as well? The lumber industry? Tobacco? Aerospace? Farming?

[Libertarian]

Originally Posted by Mark

Will we be doing that with oil as well? The lumber industry? Tobacco? Aerospace? Farming?

In my dreams..........in my dreams!!

[daenku32]

Looks like I'm not alone in my idea.

http://www.toyota.com/about/news/ind...#manufacturing
look at the background in the picture. Looks like solar cells to me.
http://www.toyota.com/about/images/news/section_pic.jpg

[ingoa]

Well, other people already do it.

http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,...732306,00.html

http://www.solarbuzz.com/FastFactsGermany.htm

[clk]

Originally Posted by daenku32

While Indiana is not exactly a great place as far as sunlight (compared to pretty much every other place in the states), a nice government subsidied program to build huge solar collectors on all of the over 100,000 square foot buildings.

I don't know how smart it would be to install solar panels in such a manner if you are not in the desert. I did not think that solar panels were that versatile, so if your area experienced any major weather problems, I am willing to bet the solar panel system would suffer damage. Especially if it were to hail, or maybe even snow.

[daenku32]

Originally Posted by NoZed Avenger

Efficiency of the cells means more than higher cost.

Has anyone run the math to see what the surface area of solar collectors/cells would have to be in order to generate even 10% of our national energy needs?

I'll try to do some looking later, but my memory was that current technology would require the panels to cover the entire surface of a small-to-medium state in its entirety. I don't trust my memory on that item, but I do question the practicality -- at the current level of efficiency.

I'll take 10% if I can coat my future house' roof with it for a couple grand. 10% would provide tremendous revenue for solar development. I imagine groups of scientists in universities are cheaper than oil explorations in the arctic.

Check this out!
http://www.spheralsolar.com/8_produc...integrated.asp
ps. Sorry for all the links to companies, I certainly do not advocate the purchase of any of these products, merely the discussion of solar usability.

[Mephisto]

Living in the American southwest, I've always been a big advocate of solar power and considering that annual rainfall where I am typically amounts to nearly two inches a year, I couldn't imagine a better place than the SW to position solar collectors. Wind power is also grossly underestimated, and I know of at least two LARGE canyons nearby where the wind ALWAYS seems to be blowing.

I do think it's hilarious that the people everyone used to point at and call "tree-huggers" are going to be seen as visionaries in the near future.

[Anti_Hypeman]

It will happen slowly if at all. You will see solar powered cell phones and lawn mowers long before houses. The sun cant meet the energy needs of my PDA so how can I expect it to power my house anytime soon.

Why do people expect soloar power to instatnly make the leap from calculators to cars and houses? Thats usually not how things happen the technology has to develope you cant just force it.

[Crossbow]

Originally Posted by daenku32

I work in an industrial park that has huge warehouse type buildings, and not a lot of pollution. I have no doubt the park uses plenty of electricity though. Most of which is probably made by the coal plant in our city.

While Indiana is not exactly a great place as far as sunlight (compared to pretty much every other place in the states), a nice government subsidied program to build huge solar collectors on all of the over 100,000 square foot buildings.

I believe if the government worked with large manufacturers they could easily agree to build few hundred square miles of solar paneling and it's equipment at relatively low per unit cost, thereby reducing solar energy products to commodity easily afforded by individuals.

Using mass production and vast empty spaces above warehouse type buildings would generate cheap and invisible energy solution, not to mention thousands of jobs.

What better time to get this project going than during the fall, so that by next summer we'll be enjoying it's benefits.

While coal would still need to be used especially during winter, the plants could use the low consumption summers to maintain and upgrade their systems.

Sorry, but fossil fuels are still very much a victim of there own success.

Take gasoline, for example. Once is produced, it can be easily transported, stored, and its energy content does not diminish with age. Further, due to its viscous liquid state and high energy to mass ratio it can be used to power everything from a small wheedwhacker to a very fast airplane.

Or, take coal, for example. Once it is mined, like gasoline it can be easily transported, stored, and its energy content does not diminish with age. Unlike gasoline, it is solid and does not have the high energy to mass ratio, therefore is not well suited to portable engines. However because of its very low storage costs (just pile up outside in large heaps) low cost, and vast reserves, it is ideally suited for large, stationary, facilities which need a substantial amount of raw energy, such as power plants.

The real problems with solar power are low efficiency (I think the current record is about 20%), variable lighting conditions, and the lack of a way to store large amounts of electricity. Things like batteries and fuel cells are rather good at storing fairly small amounts of electricity for the purpose of powering small devices for a brief amount of time, but are unsuited to the vast amounts of storage that would be supplement the grid during days of cloudy weather and/or times of darkness.

If someone could come up with a very efficient solar cell (say in the 50% range) and a practical way to store millions of kilowatt-hours, then the use of fossil fuels would drop markedly.

[Mephisto]

Originally Posted by Anti_Hypeman

It will happen slowly if at all. You will see solar powered cell phones and lawn mowers long before houses. The sun cant meet the energy needs of my PDA so how can I expect it to power my house anytime soon.

Why do people expect soloar power to instatnly make the leap from calculators to cars and houses? Thats usually not how things happen the technology has to develope you cant just force it.

Certainly you are right, but had we dedicated more attention to the technology we could have been closer to that "jump" than we are now. Still, solar and wind power could amount to a fair amount of usable power for homes and businesses. Of course, the problem is, after the intial expense and routine maintenance there's very little overhead - corporations couldn't claim rate increases were the result of foreign dominance over that power source.

BTW, I already have a solar powered lawnmower - I've got a Mexican with a rotary that does the lawn once a week. I'm also very interested in Xeriscaping which is something closely tied to my interest in Japanese landscaping and Ikebana. All easily tied to energy efficiency.

[casebro]

My take on Solar cells is that they just don't cut it. Producers currently use junk and surplus silicone form the semiconductor industry. Otherwise, production costs more in electricity than the cell will make over it's life time. But, they are good for small scale 'off the grid' uses, like emergency battery chargers for off road travelers, or the convenience of calculators.

BUT, there are some much more complicated solar energy plants using parabolic reflectors to create steam for a generating plant. Computers are used to run actuators to keep the heat focused on the receptors. I don't know how long the pay-back is though, probably so long as to not be profitible or we would all have one already. I am a firm believer in the capitalistic evolution system: if money can be made, a company will evolve to make it... once the technology gets invented.

[Jimbo07]

Originally Posted by casebro

I don't know how long the pay-back is though, probably so long as to not be profitible or we would all have one already.

I had a lab instructor who build a home 'off the grid,' as part of a pilot for a commercial venture. I had an opportunity to take a tour (we also conducted measurements using smaller panels in her yard). She calculated the pay-back as 20 years.

Clearly, you'd have to care about the emissions. If you did care about free power, you'd have to plan to live there for decades.

There could, perhaps, be some sort of massively parallel effort to 'supplement' the grid, I suppose.

Check this out:

http://www.nrel.gov/csp/1000mw_initiative.html

[Tricky]

As I understand it, it currently requires almost as much energy to construct a solor cell as that cell can be expected to produce in it's lifetime. Plus, there are all sorts of nasty waste products including PCBs resulting from the manufacture. Takes more energy to clean those up. Plus the materials used to make them are not that plentiful so large-scale manufacture of photovoltaics could result in shortages of other kinds. I can't find any good sources for this, but this little website has a couple of interesting links.

Does that mean we should abandon research into solar energy? Absolutely not. Just realize that it is not the silver bullet that so many are hoping for. Everything comes with a price tag.

[Jimbo07]

Originally Posted by Tricky

it is not the silver bullet that so many are hoping for. Everything comes with a price tag.

No technology is.

The only technology I have ever seen that even vaguely resembles some sort of magic silver bullet is nuclear fusion. Re-create a star on earth, and you have a much more accessible energy source than with solar panels. Just a few wee problems...

[Tricky]

Originally Posted by Jimbo07

No technology is.

But in this case, it's not even a lead bullet. It's more like a tofu bullet.

Originally Posted by Jimbo07

The only technology I have ever seen that even vaguely resembles some sort of magic silver bullet is nuclear fusion. Re-create a star on earth, and you have a much more accessible energy source than with solar panels. Just a few wee problems...

Where's that dang cold fusion we were promised by the woos?

But if we could build a wee star on earth, then couldn't we create a wee black hole here on earth? Then we'd have a place to put the nuclear waste from conventional fission reactors.

[Jimbo07]

Originally Posted by Tricky

But if we could build a wee star on earth, then couldn't we create a wee black hole here on earth? Then we'd have a place to put the nuclear waste from conventional fission reactors.

There have been people who have wondered if particle accelerators could achieve a black hole (I don't know what the current thinking is).

The mechanism to achieve fusion on earth is different than a star. In a star, you're relying on gravity from the incredible mass of material. On earth, you are relying on high-temperature plasmas (much hotter than the sun's core), and magnetic or laser confinement, and have to watch for high-energy neutrons.

Start here:

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

BTW, I got sidetracked browsing ITER's website. My inner skeptic takes a back seat as I uncritically label fusion protestors as 1D10Ts

[Rob Lister]

Originally Posted by NoZed Avenger

Efficiency of the cells means more than higher cost.

Has anyone run the math to see what the surface area of solar collectors/cells would have to be in order to generate even 10% of our national energy needs?

I'll try to do some looking later, but my memory was that current technology would require the panels to cover the entire surface of a small-to-medium state in its entirety. I don't trust my memory on that item, but I do question the practicality -- at the current level of efficiency.

I ran these numbers a couple of years ago assuming 100% our electrical production needs at a crazy %50 eff.

The state of Florida would just about suffice, IIRC.

[epepke]

Originally Posted by daenku32

I work in an industrial park that has huge warehouse type buildings, and not a lot of pollution. I have no doubt the park uses plenty of electricity though. Most of which is probably made by the coal plant in our city.

While Indiana is not exactly a great place as far as sunlight (compared to pretty much every other place in the states), a nice government subsidied program to build huge solar collectors on all of the over 100,000 square foot buildings.

Depends on what you want to do.

Solar heating and water heating are doable. The technology couldn't be simpler. Get some pipes and paint them black. Run water through them. If you want to get fancy, you can do better than this.

Solar air-conditioning is doable, but it still gets hot in the mornings while the air conditioners are getting up to speed. And you're going to have to do a tiny Bhopal with some really nasty chemicals, like ammonia gas.

Solar lighting is, of course, doable. Skylights and windows.

Solar power generation is not doable. People talk about costs, but of course, most people are so stupid that they imagine that it's just green pieces of paper, and not energy costs. Three decades ago, the best photovoltaic cells had to run for three decades at the Equator just to recoup the energy that it took to make them. They're better, now. I think it's down to one decade at the Equator and a couple of decades where you live.

And if you talk about replacing them with better ones, then you're talking about using more coal to make some more.

Not that many leftists will care. The leftist enviro-whacked thing is all about feeling superior, masturbating, and spooing on the ceiling. Many of them really don't care that proposals will result in more fossil fuel use, so long as they can say, "Wow, solar!" between bong hits. There was a big governmental program to add ethanol to gasoline in the early 1980s, and it went on for a while. It was called "gasohol." Automobile manufacturers didn't like it because ethanol tends to wear out engines, which also of course require energy to replace, but they were required by the Federal Government to say that gasohol was OK. Anyway, eventually, someone in the government who didn't smoke so much dope realized that the production of ethanol used more oil than just making the damn stuff into gasoline, and it was stopped. Now people have forgotten all about that, and people are trying to do ethanol again.

Note, however, that there do exist techniques for solar power generation. They involve using mirrors to concentrate sunlight onto boilers for conventional steam engines or Stirling engines. They're pretty, too. But you need an awful lot of land.

[Jimbo07]

Originally Posted by epepke

There was a big governmental program to add ethanol to gasoline in the early 1980s, and it went on for a while. It was called "gasohol." ... eventually, someone ... realized that the production of ethanol used more oil than just making the damn stuff into gasoline, and it was stopped. Now people have forgotten all about that, and people are trying to do ethanol again.

Wrong.

You wouldn't happen to be Cornell's David Pimentel would you?

[pipelineaudio]

We have ethanol in our fuel at certain times a year here

It is AWFUL! I can lose up to 5 degrees of total timing in my car running that junk, it just pings mercilessly, or I can run quite a bit richer, losing fuel mileage

Now if we could get straight methanol...

[Jimbo07]

Originally Posted by pipelineaudio

It is AWFUL! I can lose up to 5 degrees of total timing in my car running that junk, it just pings mercilessly, or I can run quite a bit richer, losing fuel mileage

Year? Make? Model? % Blend?

That runs counterintuitively. In the States anyway, ethanol is being used as an oxygenate, replacing MTBE. Presumably, the higher octane rating should reduce pinging (if you were even experiencing it in the first place). In a modern vehicle, maybe your O2 sensors are leading to an adjustment in your mixture, I don't know.

Carrying on: regardless of energy efficiency, none of ethanol, methanol, low sulphur diesel, or c H2 are magic bullets, either.

From the little that I can tell, ethanol is being adopted in U.S. fuels simply as a 'least of green evils.'