Hello friends. :wave: I am highly interested in the discussion of clean energy sources that work in harmony with nature, and so I thought I'd share with you a little section on solar energy from a book that I am currently reading. ----- The following plan would solve all our energy, economic and pollution problems within a few years. Declare war for solar energy: The President would make an executive order to build and install enough solar cells to supply all of the US energy needs in two years and we would probably end up doing it in one year. We were the people that even with millions of men out of the country fighting made one B-17 bomber every hour on an assembly line a mile long. Before the war, the factory that did it made cars with a few thousand parts. The four engine flying fortress that was ruling the skies over Europe had over a million parts. We were the guys that made a complete ship from start of finish in four days at just one shipyard. Women were doing a lot of the work. Imagine what we could do now? We mobilize our manufacturing as we did for World War II to build a new free clean energy system. If we could do it during a war, we can do it in peacetime even faster. We form a war department to build it. Mobilize for peace and prosperity: We build the mile long factories like we used to build planes and ships fast in Would War ll. We built the factories to build the planes and ships in just a few months and we could do it even faster now. We build them in different parts of the country that have high unemployment. These factories would be able to spit out miles of inexpensive solar panels everyday. Other companies would transport and install them in our counties deserts and on both sides of our interstate freeways, railroad tracks and on roofs. Putting them next to railroad tracks makes installing and cleaning easy. Like laying track: We have competitions between companies and give bonuses to the companies that make the most and lay the most solar panels in a day. When we were building the transcontinental railroad, the companies were getting bonuses for every mile of track they laid. This motivated them to build many miles of track a day. We just do something similar for laying solar panels. We get our defense contractors involved in making it happen. Pentagon: We get our pentagon involved in the war for free energy, just as we would do for a war. They have the organization skills we will need. It is why it was really created. The pentagon will be used to create a heaven on earth. We handle the whole thing like a military operation. If we do, we can do it fast. We form thousands of companies to work on different parts of the system in different locations. We start with the thousands of miles of tracks we have in our deserts and other high sunshine locations and just go from there. At the same time, we install solar panels on every home and factory. Money will not be an issue. The government will supply the hardware and labor. We would be adding millions of watts of free clean electricity to the power grid everyday by installing miles of solar panels everyday. We would just keep doing this until the solar panels supply all Americas energy needs. At the same time, our automotive industry starts mass-producing inexpensive electric cars to use the inexpensive electricity we will be creating. They will also make natural gas and hydrogen cell vehicles. This will make the struggling auto industry start booming. When we wake up we will not spend billions retooling to make a different new car every year, we will just make minor improvements to a proven design. This will cut waste and costs related to vehicles in half. It will create more jobs, not less. Our total economy will start booming and so will the world’s economy, because they will starts doing the same thing with our help. On a smaller scale, we start developing and building the towers, geothermal, windmill and any other promising technology and down the road after we see what is most economical, we gradually replace the less efficient technologies. The government will provide large grants to any company developing promising energy technology and more efficient solar cells, such as nano cell technology. We go full out on the solar cells, because we know we can do it now. We just put less proven technologies on the back burner until after we have built a solar cell system using the current proven technology. ----- From pages 194-195 of The Present You can read the full-text here: http://www.thetruthcontest.com I think this book brings up some legit points about what is going to be important technologically in the next few years. It is interesting to note that the Democrats just got a clear majority in the senate, so now we can make some big changes, and I expect we will. The energy thing explained in this book is the "big one," and I expect it to start happening in the next year. IMO, it will solve all or economic problems. Share your thoughts please! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! PS: Maybe this would fit better in the Politics section? I wasn't sure. Moderators, move this thread where you see fit. Thanks!
Sounds great Jethro. Unfortunately it won't happen like that. Any change that will take place will occur over a long period of time. Too many industries that will be disrupted in such a change, that affects jobs and that affects politics. This is where the problem lies, not in the science. It can be said that it will create new jobs, but most people live day to day and week to week and the country can't afford the disruption to the industries supplying jobs right now. It's always an unfair fight, since most of the lobbyist with power are in the non-renewables. Remember, we use around 20,000,000 barrels of oil a day in the US. Replacing that is a monumental task. It will be a multisided approach and time that will solve it.
Good ideas, JT. I'd like to know your thoughts on how we may advance more quickly into an Earth-friendlier society, that does not worship war as the sole effective focus of national motivation and mobilization. If you're not already familiar with it, check out the Apollo Alliance.
JT, Right on! You don't know how many times I have dreamed this very thing.But as usual the nightmare of human excuses for why we cannot do this comes a haunting right afterwards.Ever since a few years ago where I read the solar energy from 45 minutes of sunlight hitting the Earth would be enough to power our energy needs for 1 year and then some,I thought damn lets get a moving. Your right though,it would take an order by the President and his people backing him for even a chance of this working any time in the foreseeable future.The little guy cannot do a thing here.Reality check says not happening in our lifetimes.Sorry.
That's what they once said about books, steam engines, tractors, telephones, personal cars, personal planes, computers, and the internet. It all happened anyway, because some people don't take "no" for an answer. In 50 years or less, it is going to be entirely normal for everyday people to produce their own energy, and even manufacture complex consumer products using affordable, reliable and versatile equipment that they own personally. We're going to have small machines that make energy and small devices that make a variety of machines, building them up from raw materials and even down to compounds, elements, and nanotech. We'll trade cutting-edge engineering privately, and turn it into tangibles privately, like we swap cooking recipes today. Right now, old capitalism is burrowing into government and media, in a desperate attempt to maintain the creaking status-quo of ideas, of centralized energy, materials, and of manufacturing. Old capitalists are trying desperately to keep oppressive and obsolete (but still lucrative) economic machinery running. We'll throw a million wrenches into all of that, and we'll become cleaner, more efficient, more independent, and more free all around the world. But today's corporate robber-barons are not going down without a fight; they're waging Wars on Independence right now before our dumbfounded eyes.
I check out the link you provided and there is some good stuff on there. Thanks for sharing. People just need to see our savage history and our time of relative peace and prosperity. We need to wake up while we have this window of opportunity, and this will be done by people working to spread awareness and truth over the internet. Most people no longer have to struggle for survival, but our minds are still playing tricks on us, making us believe that other people are our enemies. The true enemy is the beast within; the deceptive mind. We have to overcome our lower, animal mind, or else we will destroy ourselves with our catastrophic war technology. In truth, I think if ideas and information like the free book linked in the original post reach enough people, we may advance more quickly into an Earth-friendlier society. We must change ourselves, because that is where change starts. Our world is just a reflection of us. We need to wake up while we can, and spreading awareness is the stage we are at now. People need to start seeking the truth for themselves. The world is a dangerous place to live, not because of the people who are evil, but because of the people who don’t do anything about it. Albert Einstein Communication technology has progressed to the point where you can sit behind a screen and spread truth and awareness anonymously, avoiding physical conflict and confrontation. Do what you can with what you have. You have a mind that can be used for productive purposes and the Internet.
We know what needs to be done, and solar energy is the way to go. It's really not even debatable. Those who support non-renewable energy sources are fools chasing paper and sacrificing the well-being of their children for the illusion of wealth and power. Like I (and Gandhi) said; we must become the change we want to see in our world. I think this book (The Present) can help change people, and that is why I shared it. It has a lot of psychologically sound points, as well as good ideas for moving toward a society that works in harmony with nature. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!eace:
Not at all. There is an abundance of energy given to us by nature that we are not harnessing. The supporters of non-renewable, destructive energy sources like oil and "clean" coal want people to perceive scarcity of energy availability. There is a giant nuclear reactor in the sky; why aren't we using it to power our world? We have the technology to do it right now; what are we waiting for? I know it sounds too simple, but it is that simple. People need to abandon their desires for the illusions of material wealth and power, or else they will continue to metaphorically drink their own children's blood. The abundance of energy will be stored and used to further development in other technologies that work in harmony with nature, such as hydrogen. It takes lots of energy to ready hydrogen for fuel use, and we can't do it now because of the system we are stuck in. I am by no means suggesting we reduce the amount of energy used; we just need to build a system that works in harmony with nature.
Exactly. If everyone in the world had solar panels on their roofs, then the people that still have sunshine would power the other half of the world that is in the night. Solar power is awesome and the president should endorse it heavily. Thats it. Amen Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Jt Oh I agree with your ideals, I have been advocating the change to renewables for 30 years. But it is not as simple as you may believe. You have to consider the impact to those involved in the non-renewables. Think about it for a minute. Not just the loss to the big money people who own and run the oil companies but the small guy working in every field that is connected to them. We are talking about a massive undertaking to convert those jobs. It's not just about replacing the energy source it's replacing the entire flow of commerce, who gets what and who does what. The other thing that you must consider and is why I asked the question. Is the amount of energy that you are replacing that is currently being used everyday. The solution will require a massive reduction in the amount we use, especially considering that we are adding population and energy users not the other way around. A few links to show the magnitude of the task ahead. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sources_of_electricity_in_the_USA_2006.png http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/energy_in_brief/renewable_energy.cfm Where I live we get almost all of our power from Hydro-electric. 71% of renewable energy used is from this source. Solar is .2 % not even 1 % of all the "renewable" is solar. It's because even building very large systems doesn't produce nearly the amount of power that say a nuclear power plant can. So now we are talking about using a lot of land. Renewables are only 7 % of total production. So Solar currently is .2 % of 7 %. The rest are non-renewables. There is no simple solution unfortunately. Considering that the grand coulee dam itself produces what 10 nuclear power plants can, it's quite a daunting task, and I can't even imagine where we would be if they didn't build the dams when they did. We certainly wouldn't build them now. Not saying I don't agree with the direction, just talking about the reality of the situation. We can keep improving the solar systems. The best ones today are not even photovoltaic but steam driven from heating special tubes. Much less costly.
By the way I used to sell solar hot water heating systems in Calif back in the 80's, works great for hot water, pre-heated water and pool heaters. Very simple. Where I live now solar doesn't work to well, sunshine is not consistent enough.
There are a lot of problems with that idea. The government already spends on alternative energy. If we legislate a timetable for production, distribution, and installation, we will be required to use technologies as they exist now, and they may not be the best choice. When something really good comes along, we will know it, and it will be the economic choice. Secondly, the US is not as rich a country as it used to be, when energy was cheap. Such a scheme may be beyond our means when the real numbers are added up, there is a significant initial set up cost. At present efficiencies, solar panel cannot meet all our energy needs and there is the problem of energy storage and distribution.
I heard of one emerging technology in the this field that has my interest. "Paint on" solar panels. You cover you roof with a liner, laid down the wires, then paint your entire roof with the solar cell paint. I don't believe they are as efficient as regular solar panels, but once the technology matures, cost should be extremely low compared to conventional panels. I'd love to be apart of the "net metering" crowd.
Efficiency, reliability, and durability are why silicon products are routinely and competitively manufactured in a carefully controlled environment. I expect manufactured solar "textiles" will far outperform anything sprayed together on site in every way- including payback. I've installed flexible, adhesive panels to metal roofing and while they are relatively low profile, the payback was much longer, and the required area much greater because of low efficiency. Long-term servicability due to thermal expansion (bubbling, cracking) and general weathering is in question for anything made of thin unprotected membranes. I think the paint-it-on idea is false economy because it will require many times more surface area, and much more frequent replacement. I understand that boxy, visible photovoltaics don't appeal to many, but efficient solar "panels" are taking many forms: Integral roofing sheets, solar shingles, etc. are all on the market, with new architecturally-integrated products emerging all the time. Reliability and efficiency have already reached phenomenal levels in rigid components, leaving little reason for on-site manufacturing of inferior, flimsier products on the roof and walls with a spray gun. For most people, the economics of solar just hasn't sunken in yet. In the USA, the up-front investment in becoming energy independent at home is approaching parity with the investment in buying a new car. Still, most people don't recognize the value of solar in comparison with a car, because our culture has become so dependent as "consumers", that we have yet to rediscover the meaning of owning affordable, quality producer products.
I am not sure that even for a few with solar roofs an economic argument is valid when compared to alternatives. I.e. the economic "opportunity cost" is probably greater than the saving on the energy bill. I.e. just making very conservative investment, such as paying part of your mortgage in advance, would probably in most cases be economically more rewarding. I am SURE that only a small fraction of the US population could do as you suggest as you are NOT including the cost of the storage system required to keep your frig full of food from spoiling, etc.* during a week of cloudy / rainy days. You are assuming that the electric grid will supply you energy during that week. But electric power companies are not charities. They invest huge amounts of capital and want a return on it. If the citizens only use them a few times each year, What do you think they MUST charge you? Answer: Essentially the same total as your annual bill is now as their fuel cost is a tiny part (zero if hydro-electric) of their total costs. I.e. there is no real savings if most were to used small independent power systems (of any kind) if all in the area served by your power company can stop working at the same time. The truth is now that with only a few going "off grid" you can make many pay for the storages cost you are using. Because they are "many" and because even only the generation and transmission cost is more than 3/4 of the electric bill these "many" do not complain (or: The "many" are too ignorant to understand that the few with solar roofs are making them pay for the storage the solar systems require.) It is sort of like my car would be cheaper than bus and taxi if only a few use cars AND the government provides gasoline at no cost, just as the power company now provides energy storage for the cloudy/rainy week at no cost to the few with solar roofs. ---------------------- *BTW, the same economic reality prevents electric cars for ever being the dominate car unless (1) nuclear energy recharges their batteries OR (2) There is no need to reduce CO2 emissions, OR (3) Country is willing to take the productivity / GDP hit of some "Stay home / don't drive to work" periods each year. PS don't get seriously sick or have an accident during the rainy week - the hospitals are shut down too, if "solution (3)" is chosen.
You have to remember the little guy when trying to turn down non-renewables. There must be millions of people around the world that work for the coal and oil companies, largely in the third world. If the rich countries build solar panels to reduce their carbon footprint, they do so at the expense of the poor countires. Those are dollars that they do not receive for exporting coal. These people will simply use the cheap coal no one else is buying. The only way to beat coal and oil is to provide alternate markets. I say if you find a way to transform coal to protein, you will have solved the energy crisis. Protein is a lot more expensive than coal per ton. Its something like 20 times more expensive. If protein produced this way is cheaper than protein produced via tradiational methods, coal prices will go up. When coal prices go up, solar panels will become more profitable. When coal prices go up, the little guys will make more money (hopefully..) When there is an alternative market for coal, there will be no political struggle. Lobbies will have nothing to bitch about, polticians nothing to bicker about, workers nothing to go on strike for. Alas, I realize that this is a challenge. Coal is full of toxic and carcinogenic substances that would have to be filtered out to meet the highest health standards. As for oil, drilling companies have much to profit from renewable energy. Spent oil wells could be used to harness geothermal energy, and old oil well deeds and drilling rights could become very valuable. The above is true. I think that there is an energy source that no one ever mentions, one that will come and take the world by surprise. I may be wrong about this, but perhaps investing too heavily in solar is a blunder because cheaper and cleaner energy is just over the horizon.
Yes, and the Liberals Ecconuts, think that it will be different here in the U.S., well look at Spain, for every new Green Job, they have spent $800,000+ dollars in cash and subsidies, and destroyed 2.2 other jobs in the process. Obama thinks we are going to do better? why? http://politics.randomplayground.ne...more-than-2-jobs-for-every-green-job-created/ Spain Has Spent About $1m Per Green Job; and Has Lost More Than 2 Jobs for Every Green Job Created Posted by: Mark J. Perryin Economy25 JunAdd CommentWASHINGTON -- The Spanish professor is puzzled. Why, Gabriel Calzada wonders, is the U.S. president recommending that America emulate the Spanish model for creating "green jobs" in "alternative energy" even though Spain's unemployment rate is 18.1%-- more than double the European Union average -- partly because of spending on such jobs? Calzada, 36, an economics professor at Universidad Rey Juan Carlos, has produced a report which, if true, is inconvenient for the Obama administration's green agenda, and for some budget assumptions that are dependent upon it. ~George Will's column "Tilting at Green Windmills" The following are key points from the "Study of the Effects on Employment of Public Aid to Renewable Energy Sources": 1. As President Obama correctly remarked, Spain provides a reference for the establishment of government aid to renewable energy. No other country has given such broad support to the construction and production of electricity through renewable sources. The arguments for Spain’s and Europe’s “green jobs” schemes are the same arguments now made in the U.S., principally that massive public support would produce large numbers of green jobs. The question that this paper answers is “at what price?” 2. We find that for every renewable energy job that the State manages to finance, Spain’s experience cited by President Obama as a model reveals with high confidence, by two different methods, that the U.S. should expect a loss of at least 2.2 jobs on average, or about 9 jobs lost for every 4 created, to which we have to add those jobs that non-subsidized investments with the same resources would have created. 3. The study calculates that since 2000 Spain spent €571,138 ($800,000) to create each “green job”, including subsidies of more than €1 million ($1.4 million) per wind industry job. The study calculates that the programs creating those jobs also resulted in the destruction of nearly 110,000 jobs from elsewhere in Spain's economy. http://townhall.com/columnists/Geor...ng_at_green_windmills?page=full&comments=true Calzada says Spain's torrential spending -- no other nation has so aggressively supported production of electricity from renewable sources -- on wind farms and other forms of alternative energy has indeed created jobs. But Calzada's report concludes that they often are temporary and have received $752,000 to $800,000 each in subsidies -- wind industry jobs cost even more, $1.4 million each. And each new job entails the loss of 2.2 other jobs that are either lost or not created in other industries because of the political allocation -- sub-optimum in terms of economic efficiency -- of capital. (European media regularly report "eco-corruption" leaving a "footprint of sleaze" -- gaming the subsidy systems, profiteering from land sales for wind farms, etc.) Calzada says the creation of jobs in alternative energy has subtracted about 110,000 jobs from elsewhere in Spain's economy.
Let's get diffuse to concentrated The usual saying is that one hour's solar light falling on earth is enough to power our entire year's energy needs. Perhaps even this is an understatement. However, the key point such an exhortation omits is that solar energy is diffuse. Such a diffuse form of energy needs to be concentrated before it can supply us the energy we want, and therein lies the rub. Either we should be able to get a concentrated form of solar energy spending much less energy and expense in the process, or we should find a way which we are able to device mechanisms or equipments that can benefit from the diffused form of energy. I know what I am saying is just a theoretical construct, but I feel it is not just material sciences alone that will do the trick of bringing down the cost of solar power. NS @ Alternative Energy Profits
