I'm still waiting for my flying car, you scientist biatches.

/He's obviously not from there (Texas), is he boy, Xiaoyang Zhu.

If God wanted us to use renewable energy, he would have let us drill for solar panels in West Texas.

/am I doing it right?

Alys: If God wanted us to use renewable energy, he would have let us drill for solar panels in West Texas.

/am I doing it right?

Being a typical liberal? Yes, you are.

The sun itself is just one big hoax. It's nothing more than an incandescent bulb behind a lens.

Doubling is a bit of an exaggeration. Photons that come in too hot will excite electrons too high, but they will vibrationally relax to a voltage that can be ejected from silicon. Still, though, this comes with heat loss, so any two-for-one lower voltage electron-hole separation will get you back a chunk of efficiency. This is a good principle to exploit. Kudos. If this takes off, I know a few people whose careers will be pretty much over.

HotIgneous Intruder: I'm still waiting for my flying car, you scientist biatches.

/He's obviously not from there (Texas), is he boy, Xiaoyang Zhu.

http://www.terrafugia.com/

yw

Fusion reactor Sol:

99.8632% of the mass in our solar system.
Maintenance free.
Fueled up for ~4 billion years.

Space based solar is the future of power. Compared to our Sun all the the fossil, chemical, wind, tidal, geothermal, hydro and nuclear energy, both fusion and fission on Earth (and the rest of our solar system) is so small it can be considered a rounding error. (Fission is great for outer solar system exploration.)

Anyone advocating any other energy source other than terrestrial based solar and space based solar is short sited, backward, primitive, foolish and smells of elderberries.

I've been keeping track of these. By 2016 with will have solar panels with 100,000% efficiency. During war time hand grenades will be replaced with a mini-solar panel strapped to the top of a frisbee. And nuclear bombs will be replaced by a solar panel, 3 mirrors and 30-watt bulb.

Free light, heat and power for the whole world!? The sun is the biggest socialist of them all! You're a commie-terrorist-nazi who hates American AND baby Jesus if you want solar power instead of freedom fuels.

bootman: Anyone advocating any other energy source other than terrestrial based solar and space based solar is short sited

Yeah, we should totally ignore the hundreds of years' supply of gas, liquid and solid flammable materials sitting under our feet, ready for the taking. I'm sure we can just float up into space to establish all of those solar arrays.

_{/At least I can spell the word "sighted".}

bootman: Fusion reactor Sol:

99.8632% of the mass in our solar system.
Maintenance free.
Fueled up for ~4 billion years.

Space based solar is the future of power. Compared to our Sun all the the fossil, chemical, wind, tidal, geothermal, hydro and nuclear energy, both fusion and fission on Earth (and the rest of our solar system) is so small it can be considered a rounding error. (Fission is great for outer solar system exploration.)

Anyone advocating any other energy source other than terrestrial based solar and space based solar is short sited, backward, primitive, foolish and smells of elderberries.

Except for that small fact that we don't know how to wirelessly transmit power on any real scale. Space based solar might be the bee's knees....150 years from now. Right now it's not worth anything since all the crap we need to power isn't in space. It's certainly one of the things we need to accomplish, but in the meat time, we have a lot of stuff that needs electricity right now. And right now we know how to burn stuff and spin turbines. So that's what we do, and we're gonna keep doing if we like using electricity.

I still think we should be harnessing the energy in fapping. There's what, 3.5 billion power plants just waiting to be hooked up to the grid.

Bacontastesgood: bootman: Anyone advocating any other energy source other than terrestrial based solar and space based solar is short sited

Yeah, we should totally ignore the hundreds of years' supply of gas, liquid and solid flammable materials sitting under our feet, ready for the taking. I'm sure we can just float up into space to establish all of those solar arrays.

/At least I can spell the word "sighted".

Space-based solar is awesomely cheap! Only $28,000, and your Arcos will launch long before it misfires.

Bacontastesgood: bootman: Anyone advocating any other energy source other than terrestrial based solar and space based solar is short sited

Yeah, we should totally ignore the hundreds of years' supply of gas, liquid and solid flammable materials sitting under our feet, ready for the taking. I'm sure we can just float up into space to establish all of those solar arrays.

/At least I can spell the word "sighted".

Except we don't have hundreds of years of CHEAP resources under our feet. We're already hitting the cost wall on oil (Hint: over 3 bucks a gallon on gas is NOT a good sign) and if we ramp up production of the other types, they'll run into similar problems. Also, pollution problems and rather narrow usage restrictions (Hint: Combustion SUCKS for energy conversion!) on each of them make it even less appealing compared to the rapidly improving solar options.

So in the end, the moment we can, then yes we SHOULD just leave those old sources of power behind, same way we left the horse and buggy behind.

bootman: Fusion reactor Sol:

99.8632% of the mass in our solar system.
Maintenance free.
Fueled up for ~4 billion years.

Space based solar is the future of power. Compared to our Sun all the the fossil, chemical, wind, tidal, geothermal, hydro and nuclear energy, both fusion and fission on Earth (and the rest of our solar system) is so small it can be considered a rounding error. (Fission is great for outer solar system exploration.)

Anyone advocating any other energy source other than terrestrial based solar and space based solar is short sited, backward, primitive, foolish and smells of elderberries.

Really, when you are using fossil fuels, you are doing the same thing as running on batteries that were charged by solar power. Fossil fuels are merely stored potential energy from the sun. So really, when I advocate using fossil fuels and natural gas, I am really advocating using naturally stored solar energy.

Anyone advocating using anything other than solar and space based solar is probably realisitic. Solar power is still too expensive per watt to be practical right now, especially the farther you get from the equator.

taurusowner: bootman: Fusion reactor Sol:

99.8632% of the mass in our solar system.
Maintenance free.
Fueled up for ~4 billion years.

Space based solar is the future of power. Compared to our Sun all the the fossil, chemical, wind, tidal, geothermal, hydro and nuclear energy, both fusion and fission on Earth (and the rest of our solar system) is so small it can be considered a rounding error. (Fission is great for outer solar system exploration.)

Anyone advocating any other energy source other than terrestrial based solar and space based solar is short sited, backward, primitive, foolish and smells of elderberries.

Except for that small fact that we don't know how to wirelessly transmit power on any real scale. Space based solar might be the bee's knees....150 years from now. Right now it's not worth anything since all the crap we need to power isn't in space. It's certainly one of the things we need to accomplish, but in the meat time, we have a lot of stuff that needs electricity right now. And right now we know how to burn stuff and spin turbines. So that's what we do, and we're gonna keep doing if we like using electricity.

Except this story is showing that we're very quickly learning how to just make a plate and stick it in the light for power. Which is FAR better for pretty much everyone concerned than burning oil/coal/gas to get power, as combustion in general is a horribly inefficient way to convert energy. Fuel cells would be a LITTLE better, but in the end we've got literally free power streaming to the surface every day, why not grab every joule we can of it? As for us not knowing how to wirelessly transmit power... this technology could solve that as well. Solar panel station powers laser, laser fires across space to diffusion grid on surface, diffuses power back across more solar panels at location. Inefficient to be sure, but talking a 45% conversion rate at the plate ( 1% higher than the experimental results he's getting now, with a prediction of going up to 66%) you'd still be getting roughly 22% of the energy collected (minus any conversion losses from electric to laser) and you'd be able to have multiple small stations funneling this power from anywhere with that system. And I'm an idiot compared to some of the thinkers involved in this stuff, so I'm sure they have better ideas than that in the works too. It won't take any 150 years to get this going, it'll be inside our lifetime.

Director_Mr: bootman: Fusion reactor Sol:

99.8632% of the mass in our solar system.
Maintenance free.
Fueled up for ~4 billion years.

Space based solar is the future of power. Compared to our Sun all the the fossil, chemical, wind, tidal, geothermal, hydro and nuclear energy, both fusion and fission on Earth (and the rest of our solar system) is so small it can be considered a rounding error. (Fission is great for outer solar system exploration.)

Anyone advocating any other energy source other than terrestrial based solar and space based solar is short sited, backward, primitive, foolish and smells of elderberries.

Really, when you are using fossil fuels, you are doing the same thing as running on batteries that were charged by solar power. Fossil fuels are merely stored potential energy from the sun. So really, when I advocate using fossil fuels and natural gas, I am really advocating using naturally stored solar energy.

Anyone advocating using anything other than solar and space based solar is probably realisitic. Solar power is still too expensive per watt to be practical right now, especially the farther you get from the equator.

FTA, the average cost of solar power in 2011 is about $1/watt. That's not particularly expensive, and until you start hitting arctic lattitudes you don't lose THAT much power (as most solar panels nowadays can use diffuse light as well). Solar panels are becoming more viable constantly, and the reduction in pollution and being able to be free of a limited source (the Sun will last a little longer than the Earth after all) solar has some definite advantages that fossil fuels will NEVER match.

Every PV thread has one person worthy to win the "I know absolutely nothing, but I still feel like the shait I have to say is worth listening to" award.

Step up for your prize, taurusowner!

While Exxon is not a bad word in my household, I do think this is a good thing and look forward to the day that Solar is commercially economical. The more choices we have, the better things will be for each one of us.

xellas84: Director_Mr: bootman: Fusion reactor Sol:

99.8632% of the mass in our solar system.
Maintenance free.
Fueled up for ~4 billion years.

Space based solar is the future of power. Compared to our Sun all the the fossil, chemical, wind, tidal, geothermal, hydro and nuclear energy, both fusion and fission on Earth (and the rest of our solar system) is so small it can be considered a rounding error. (Fission is great for outer solar system exploration.)

Anyone advocating any other energy source other than terrestrial based solar and space based solar is short sited, backward, primitive, foolish and smells of elderberries.

Really, when you are using fossil fuels, you are doing the same thing as running on batteries that were charged by solar power. Fossil fuels are merely stored potential energy from the sun. So really, when I advocate using fossil fuels and natural gas, I am really advocating using naturally stored solar energy.

Anyone advocating using anything other than solar and space based solar is probably realisitic. Solar power is still too expensive per watt to be practical right now, especially the farther you get from the equator.

FTA, the average cost of solar power in 2011 is about $1/watt. That's not particularly expensive, and until you start hitting arctic lattitudes you don't lose THAT much power (as most solar panels nowadays can use diffuse light as well). Solar panels are becoming more viable constantly, and the reduction in pollution and being able to be free of a limited source (the Sun will last a little longer than the Earth after all) solar has some definite advantages that fossil fuels will NEVER match.

The article is useless, and doesn't discuss where it gets the figure for $1 per watt. The article they site as the source for that figure also doesn't discuss how you can get solar panels for $1 per watt. And you are still stuck with storing the solar power if you want it to power your home completely. Storing that solar power is what makes the whole thing expensive. I'd be interested where they are pulling this $1 per watt for solar power out of, and how they come by that figure, because it makes no sense whatsoever. If you have a maxed out 20 amp circuit breaker, you are drawing about 2200 watts. If you use central air, you are probably drawing 3500 watts while the air conditioner is running. The average home can draw like 10000 watts easily if you are running air-conditioning, drying clothes, and doing other things in your house. So based on this article, solar power is for a 10000 watt draw is only $10000 installed? I don't know that I believe that, and would need to see hard data to back that up.

taurusowner:

Except for that small fact that we don't know how to wirelessly transmit power on any real scale.

Actually that is well-understood existing technology. Choose the right microwave frequency and the atmosphere is more or less transparent to beamed power, and your receiving station and transmitter aren't much more complex than a big grid of wires. They've demonstrated transmission efficiencies over 90%.

The trick is getting stuff up there, which is more a political will and money issue than anything technological.

Director_Mr: I don't know that I believe that, and would need to see hard data to back that up.

The price of solar modules per watt produced has been falling at a compounding rate of 7% a year for quite a while now and there is presently no reason to believe that this will change in the foreseeable future. It is inevitable, given enough time the cost of solar will out compete everything else if the 7% annual drop continues.

300$ a watt in 1956, useless.
50$ a watt in the 1970s, hippie toy.
10$ a watt in the 1990s, some uses.
.75-1.05 a watt today, useful in sunny places.
.01-.10 a watt in 5-20 years, cheaper to install panels than to connect to the grid. (Yes, this one was pulled from my arse.)

http://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelkanellos/2011/11/09/is-there-a-mo or es-law-for-solar/

Bacontastesgood: bootman: Anyone advocating any other energy source other than terrestrial based solar and space based solar is short sited

Yeah, we should totally ignore the hundreds of years' supply of gas, liquid and solid flammable materials sitting under our feet, ready for the taking. I'm sure we can just float up into space to establish all of those solar arrays.

/At least I can spell the word "sighted".

Oh yeah, oil drilling and coal mining have no downsides and are tremendously easy to access. There is a basically unlimited supply and burning fossil fuels have absolutely NO impact on the environment.

Bacontastesgood: Yeah, we should totally ignore the hundreds of years' supply of gas, liquid and solid flammable materials sitting under our feet, ready for the taking. I'm sure we can just float up into space to establish all of those solar arrays.

Even if it was free and had no externalities it should be ignored, it is slowing down human progress, delaying our manifest destiny.

http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2011/07/galactic-scale-energy/

Non-solar solutions are effectively squatting in a ditch, sticking berries up our noses.

xellas84: Bacontastesgood: bootman: Anyone advocating any other energy source other than terrestrial based solar and space based solar is short sited

Yeah, we should totally ignore the hundreds of years' supply of gas, liquid and solid flammable materials sitting under our feet, ready for the taking. I'm sure we can just float up into space to establish all of those solar arrays.

/At least I can spell the word "sighted".

Except we don't have hundreds of years of CHEAP resources under our feet. We're already hitting the cost wall on oil (Hint: over 3 bucks a gallon on gas is NOT a good sign)
True, but nat gas is dirt cheap right now, like 3.15 a therm after last week. Any alternate electricity source has to be contrasted against that. Combined cycle natural gas plants and turbine only "peaking" plants are relatively cheap, have relatively few NIMBY issues, and are reliable and highly variable with respect to grid loads.

Combining these kinds of resources with wind and terrestrial solar is a viable strategy, technically and economically. You build in a robust mix, so when the wind doesn't blow or insolation isn't great (which is actually more rare than what the naysayers claim) you just spin up the turbines a little more, when the weather's temperate and the grid load is low, you spin them down a little...

Power plants in space, while cool, just isn't happening right now, and its not a big conspiracy...

Bacontastesgood:

bootman: Anyone advocating any other energy source other than terrestrial based solar and space based solar is short sited

Yeah, we should totally ignore the hundreds of years' supply of gas, liquid and solid flammable materials sitting under our feet, ready for the taking. I'm sure we can just float up into space to establish all of those solar arrays.

/At least I can spell the word "sighted".

No, see, we are very short on the SITES that will collect all this solar power, terrestrial and space-based. So, we're short-sited. Give the lad some credit -- he MUST be a scientician, or something, because he sure likes telling other people what to do.

Oh great. General Greentard is here. I'm going to need that award back, taurusowner.

maxheck: The trick is getting stuff up there, which is more a political will and money issue than anything technological.

Hydrogen gas cannons. Roll'em and kick'em up there for about $250 a pound.

http://quicklaunchinc.com/hydrogen-gun-technology/

General_Jim:

No, see, we are very short on the SITES that will collect all this solar power, terrestrial and space-based. So, we're short-sited. Give the lad some credit -- he MUST be a scientician, or something, because he sure likes telling other people what to do.

Because if there's one thing we don't have in this country it's roofs or other open space.

Hollie Maea:

Oh great. General Greentard is here. I'm going to need that award back, taurusowner.

Don't feel bad -- you earned it fair and square. Your little hissy fit above contributed absolutely NOTHING to ANYONE.

GeneralJim: Hollie Maea: Oh great. General Greentard is here. I'm going to need that award back, taurusowner.
Don't feel bad -- you earned it fair and square. Your little hissy fit above contributed absolutely NOTHING to ANYONE.

At least my non-contribution took but one line instead of requiring page after page of inane and worthless green wall of nauseating text.

Could people please stop claiming the problem with solar is our distance from the equator, or all our clouds? Its bullshiat. I'm on my phone without a link handy, but Google it and compare us to Germany.

MrEricSir: I still think we should be harnessing the energy in fapping. There's what, 3.5 billion power plants just waiting to be hooked up to the grid.

Will you change your FARK handle to "The Human Dynamo"?

Hollie Maea:

At least my non-contribution took but one line instead of requiring page after page of inane and worthless green wall of nauseating text.

All three of your posts so far have been complaints about other people. You're the thread biatch. Enjoy.

Hector Remarkable: The sun itself is just one big hoax. It's nothing more than an incandescent bulb behind a lens.

True, man. True.

GeneralJim: Hollie Maea: At least my non-contribution took but one line instead of requiring page after page of inane and worthless green wall of nauseating text.
All three of your posts so far have been complaints about other people. You're the thread biatch. Enjoy.

At least I'm distracting you from spewing lies and FUD. That's got to count for something.

GeneralJim: Hollie Maea: At least my non-contribution took but one line instead of requiring page after page of inane and worthless green wall of nauseating text.
All three of your posts so far have been complaints about other people. You're the thread biatch. Enjoy.

Why the hell do you green your text? Is it a protest against something? A Dadaist response to readability? Are you afraid that if people don't see your posts you won't exist? Why?

bootman: Director_Mr: I don't know that I believe that, and would need to see hard data to back that up.

The price of solar modules per watt produced has been falling at a compounding rate of 7% a year for quite a while now and there is presently no reason to believe that this will change in the foreseeable future. It is inevitable, given enough time the cost of solar will out compete everything else if the 7% annual drop continues.

300$ a watt in 1956, useless.
50$ a watt in the 1970s, hippie toy.
10$ a watt in the 1990s, some uses.
.75-1.05 a watt today, useful in sunny places.
.01-.10 a watt in 5-20 years, cheaper to install panels than to connect to the grid. (Yes, this one was pulled from my arse.)

http://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelkanellos/2011/11/09/is-there-a-mo or es-law-for-solar/

Ahh, my instincts were right. From the article you sited:

"Under the SunShot program, solar energy will decline to $1 per watt-a price that includes installation, modules, and electronics-by 2017 or so."

So if we subsidize it (sunshot program), costs will go down to $1 per by 2017, which means the average home can power its useage for $10000 or so. This will not include storing the energy overnight. So you will have solar paying for itself in maybe 10 to 15 years or so. That sounds reasonable. I'll think about getting solar panels in 5 years maybe.

Director_Mr: So if we subsidize it (sunshot program), costs will go down to $1 per by 2017, which means the average home can power its useage for $10000 or so. This will not include storing the energy overnight. So you will have solar paying for itself in maybe 10 to 15 years or so. That sounds reasonable. I'll think about getting solar panels in 5 years maybe.

Now think about 10-20 years after then. The price is not likely to stop falling. What will the world be like? Almost free energy, for everyone. What will the social, economic, moral and technological implications be?

Director_Mr: I'll think about getting solar panels in 5 years maybe.

If you buy in the next two weeks, you can get super cheap Chinese crap panels for next to nothing with no fear of retroactive tariffs.

Hollie Maea:

At least I'm distracting you from spewing lies and FUD. That's got to count for something.

Yeah, frequent flier miles. (You're now at 0/4)

Hollie Maea: Director_Mr: I'll think about getting solar panels in 5 years maybe.

If you buy in the next two weeks, you can get super cheap Chinese crap panels for next to nothing with no fear of retroactive tariffs.

I think the question would be: "What interest do the Chinese have in manufacturing crap panels?"

Smackledorfer: Could people please stop claiming the problem with solar is our distance from the equator, or all our clouds? Its bullshiat. I'm on my phone without a link handy, but Google it and compare us to Germany.

Link (new window)

Director_Mr: Ahh, my instincts were right. From the article you sited:

"Under the SunShot program, solar energy will decline to $1 per watt-a price that includes installation, modules, and electronics-by 2017 or so."

So if we subsidize it (sunshot program), costs will go down to $1 per by 2017, which means the average home can power its useage for $10000 or so. This will not include storing the energy overnight. So you will have solar paying for itself in maybe 10 to 15 years or so. That sounds reasonable. I'll think about getting solar panels in 5 years maybe.

The average price per watt for panels in the US is currently $2.43 - however you can buy the cheapest panels on the market, which are currently $1.14 a watt. Link (new window) But again, you'll get what you pay for. Those price figures are before *any* local, state or federal subsidies.

Under a dollar-a-watt *panels* should happen by spring. You still have to factor in additional wiring, mounts, inverters, permitting and labor costs. When all of that is added, you'll be at around $4.50 an installed watt. Then subtract 30% for the federal tax credit, and add up any other local or utility incentives.

I'm putting up a ~$20,000 array on my house (my 3rd array, after two at work and one on the vacation home). That size of array will cover *all* of my home's energy needs, and I'm in cloudy Seattle. With my state's production incentives, my basic return-on-investment is 6.5 years, or in other terms has an annual rate on the investment of 15.4%. Try finding a bank account or other guaranteed investment with a rate anywhere close to that.

I'm thinking that if we combine all the breakthroughs I read about in the last year, in 5 years, we should have 150% output.

CSB:
A buddy of mine lives out in the sticks and built his own home. It's a two story house, about three thousand square feet (roughly), and has a small, detached workshop. It was going to cost him ten thousand dollars to get the electric company to install a pole and run power lines to his house. Instead, he spent fourteen thousand for a solar system (that included installation and whatever battery system they had for storing power) and he hasn't had any issues with insufficient power. He claims it's not even a hassle to clear the panel when the snows come.
/CSB
I'd gladly pay that to never have an electric bill again. He's had the system for just over two years now and no major issues as far as maintenance. The wind threw a tree limb into it, but it only cost him a couple of hundred dollars to have the small damaged section of the panel replaced.

is it mirrors again?

/didn`t RTFA

Alys: If God wanted us to use renewable energy, he would have let us drill for solar panels in West Texas.

/am I doing it right?

Considering that the article says this new panel is plastic-based, I would say so.