Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[sluissa]

Because it's not high-yield at this distance with the technology we have available to harness it. At least on the scale necessary for providing energy for a roboconomy. Of course, once we get around to constructing partial Dyson spheres with material we will presumably conjure from the aether...

I would argue that if we put a good chunk of what we're spending now to mine coal, oil and gas, and the research being done to try to make those fuels "cleaner" we could easily be providing the world's energy through solar alone. Maybe throw some wind and hydro and maybe geothermal in there where it's useful.

The problem is that solar isn't profitable. Solar is expensive to begin with, which puts a lot of people off, but once you have it in place, it'll last a good 20-30 years with little maintainance other than cleaning once in a while and the odd replacement of a cell due to physical damage of some sort. (Assuming photovoltaic cells here. The other methods, like solar thermal generation have some other maintainance things, but they tend to run pretty cheaply as well in the long run, at least when compared to fossil fuel plants.)

The output of them is obviously not as high as fossil fuels, but if you place plants strategically (most of the desert southwest US would be good. Might be worth it in the middle east as well.), and encourage people to put them on their roofs, then there's really no reason we couldn't provide ourselves with all the power we needed from sustainable resources.

It's just that once things are in place, there's not much of a continuing profit stream.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Solar_land_area.png

[SalmonGod]

I've been arguing the same point for years.

Efficiency:  We've been fine-tuning fossil fuel efficiency for a very, very long time, and it's had tons of support in the process via its status as the world's primary energy source.  We've been fine-tuning solar for a relatively short period of time with very little support, while fighting the very deep economic rooting of fossil fuels in the process.  Yet we reached a point years ago already where it was declared that with solar panels, about 1% of the planet's surface could meet our current energy needs.  They're also versatile enough that they can be woven into fabric.

Profit:  The powers that be (or even most common people with any relation to or dependence on the energy industry) will not favor the technology until they can think of an excuse to charge people for sunlight.

[RedKing]

Just to bring this back to real-world application for a second:
Looks like the NYPD is doing a major crackdown on the Brooklyn Bridge. Early reports are that there have been hundreds of arrests.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Because it's not high-yield at this distance with the technology we have available to harness it. At least on the scale necessary for providing energy for a roboconomy. Of course, once we get around to constructing partial Dyson spheres with material we will presumably conjure from the aether millions of asteroids in and around our Solar System.

Yet we reached a point years ago already where it was declared that with solar panels, about 1% of the planet's surface could meet our current energy needs.

That actually isn't very good. The amount of Earth's surface inhabited by humans is about 1%. One percent is a lot of space on this rock.

[sluissa]

Because it's not high-yield at this distance with the technology we have available to harness it. At least on the scale necessary for providing energy for a roboconomy. Of course, once we get around to constructing partial Dyson spheres with material we will presumably conjure from the aether millions of asteroids in and around our Solar System.

Yet we reached a point years ago already where it was declared that with solar panels, about 1% of the planet's surface could meet our current energy needs.

That actually isn't very good. The amount of Earth's surface inhabited by humans is about 1%. One percent is a lot of space on this rock.

That estimate is from years ago, as said. With further improvements, you don't think that could be brought down? Besides. I'd be willing to trade some unused land(or water) for the promise of clean, sustainable power.

In any case, I'd like to see sources for both those numbers. The map I gave looked like it might have been a bit more than 1%. And I'd really want to think that humans inhabit more than 1%. Perhaps if you only count the area each human is standing on at any given moment.

[Urist Imiknorris]

Start paving deserts with solar panels.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Start paving deserts with solar panels.

That may not be the best idea. One guy with a relatively weak bomb could crash an entire power grid with power generation that centralized.

I think that a solar panel on every house would be much safer, but we need to make them more efficient before that's an option.

[SalmonGod]

Because it's not high-yield at this distance with the technology we have available to harness it. At least on the scale necessary for providing energy for a roboconomy. Of course, once we get around to constructing partial Dyson spheres with material we will presumably conjure from the aether millions of asteroids in and around our Solar System.

Yet we reached a point years ago already where it was declared that with solar panels, about 1% of the planet's surface could meet our current energy needs.

That actually isn't very good. The amount of Earth's surface inhabited by humans is about 1%. One percent is a lot of space on this rock.

Humans can't realistically inhabit the majority of space on this rock -- places such as Antarctica or the ocean.  Plus, my point was that the technology has reached that point in a relatively short period of time with little support.  It still has tons and tons of potential to improve.

[Virex]

Start paving deserts with solar panels.

That may not be the best idea. One guy with a relatively weak bomb could crash an entire power grid with power generation that centralized.

I think that a solar panel on every house would be much safer, but we need to make them more efficient before that's an option.

Can't make them more than twice as efficient as we have now, you hit a theoretical limit. And I don't think twice as good is good enough. Plus, there's the absurd costs associated with multilayer cells that cause a lot of trouble as well.

[kaijyuu]

Necessity is the mother of invention.

I'm not too worried about an energy crisis once non-renewable resources run out. We'll think of something.

Not to say planning ahead isn't a good idea. It's a great idea! I just doubt we'll fall back into the middle ages once the oil runs dry.

[alway]

Back on topic: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44742659/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/
400 500 arrested today.

Updated: 500 arrested now.

[sluissa]

As much as I tend to agree with... at least parts of the message... why do they have to be such idiots about how they protest?

Granted, it's a good way to get publicity, but it's not making me want to associate myself with them in any way.

All I see are people, with a fairly legitimate grievance, doing stupid, illegal things, and then whining about it when they get in trouble for doing said stupid and illegal things, completely overshadowing and pushing aside the original statement of the protest.

[Vector]

Relevant.

[kaijyuu]

As much as I tend to agree with... at least parts of the message... why do they have to be such idiots about how they protest?

Granted, it's a good way to get publicity, but it's not making me want to associate myself with them in any way.

All I see are people, with a fairly legitimate grievance, doing stupid, illegal things, and then whining about it when they get in trouble for doing said stupid and illegal things, completely overshadowing and pushing aside the original statement of the protest.

Mmmm yeah I see where you're coming from, though I don't feel a need to distance myself from them for this.

If you're blocking traffic, don't be surprised if you get arrested... I won't really be sympathetic. If you're not blocking traffic and get arrested, that's when I'll be outraged.

[LordBucket]

I think that a solar panel on every house would be much safer,
but we need to make them more efficient before that's an option.

Agreed that decentralization is preferable, but living in california, and having spoken with two solar companies in the past year, it's obvious that the entire situation in motivated by desire to keep money exchanging hands rather than any desire to actually solve problems.

 * $20,000 worth of solar panels can provide roughly one third of the power needs for my primary residence.
 * There are all sorts of government subsidies and endorsements as well as various programs to rent rather than buy panels. With one program, for example, if we install solar, the company doing the installation immediately gets a large cash incentive from the government. They take that in lieu of installation costs, and we "rent" the panels in the form of paying them directly for the electricity they produce. However, the panels won't generate enough to completely power the house, so we pay two electrical bills per month, one to edison, and one to the panel company, and the way the numbers work out, our actual monthly total works out to about the same as it is right now: about $200-$250/mo. But we get to "feel good" about being "green." At least, 1/3 green.
 * Given wind conditions in the area, a single $1500 wind turbine could provide more than 100% of the required power roughly 8 months out of the year, and more than 80% the other 4 months. For anyone paying less than $200/mo for power, that single $1500 turbine would provide all of their electricity, year-round.
 * County law prohibits wind turbines on properties smaller than 5 acres

Such situations presumably result from the very issues we've discussed: our society is not motivated by desire to solve or simplify our problems so much as by desire to keep the money flowing. In my area, most private residences could have their electrical needs completely provided for, for a quarter what the state is willing to pay for solar. California solar rebates are  complicated, but the number I've been given is that they'll pay "about a third" of installation costs. So, about $6600 in our case. And that's for panels that generate a third of our power and won't reduce our monthly bill at all. Yet despite the state being willing to pay $6600 to keep us paying the same monthly bill, law prohibits us from paying $1500 ourselves to reduce our monthly payments almost to zero?

For $1500 our electric bill could be almost entirely wiped out, and I suspect that most of my neighbors use much less electricity than we do. It's not unreasonable to think that for much less money than the state pays in subsidies, the majority of all residential electrical use could be completely provided with no monthly payment. Instead of paying $6000 in subsidies to solar companies to install then rent panels that only generate a third of our power, doesn't it make much more sense to make it standard practice to install $1500 turbines on every new house? Rather than having massive centralized power generation facilities and transferring power across the state, requiring thousands of miles of cabling, installers, maintenance crews, technicians, billing departments, accountants and companies like SCE, SDG&E and PGE, wouldn't it make much more sense to simply start installing wind turbines on all new construction?

But we don't do that. Because more pieces of green paper get to move around if we don't. More money is moved around and more people are employed by $20,000 solar panels plus $200/mo forever in electric bills than a single $1500 wind generator that typically lasts 20-25 years.