Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Environment

Readers Write: The Power of the Sun

By AlterNet Staff, AlterNet. Posted December 11, 2006.


Readers had a strong response to an article that questioned whether solar power is the answer to our energy crisis.
Advertisement

Editor's Note: Author Travis Bradford gave his response to our readers' questions and comments.

Basically everyone except Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., knows global warming is a serious problem. But what to do about it is not so clear-cut.

We recently published an interview that David Roberts did with Travis Bradford, author of "Solar Revolution: The Economic Transformation of the Global Energy Industry," and it stirred a lot of comments from our readers.

Bradford advocates for a solar-powered future. Not only is solar a clean energy alternative, but, he argues, it will be the first ever competitor for utility companies.

Solar, in combination with wind and geothermal, Bradford predicts, will make the need for coal obsolete.

Many AlterNet readers agreed that solar energy is an important renewable to consider. But not all thought the technology was the sure thing that Bradford insists and most comments debated him on the issue of decentralizing power and where biofuels stand in the equation.

Bradford boldly states that "coal is the enemy of the human race," which many readers supported. Thoughtcriminal wrote:

The most polluting and disastrous industry in the United States is the coal business -- the evidence is obvious, from the actions of Massey coal in mountaintop removal in the Appalachians to the damaged water on Hopi and Navajo reservations in the Southwest, to the open-pit mines of Montana. Billions of tons of CO2 are injected every year into the atmosphere from coal-fired electricity generation in the United States and China, along with sulfur, nitrogen oxides, mercury and arsenic.

Another reader from West Virginia (where Massey Energy does their dirty work) agreed that those who live close to coal extraction and processing areas bear a heftier burden for our energy needs.

"It's very rare for a discussion of these issues to take into account all of the costs of coal -- the subsidies are enormous, and hidden and unjust," the West Virginian writes. But also adds, "I'd love to believe that a solar revolution is inevitable, but is there enough silicon? What about the problem of intermittency? Major steps toward conservation and efficiency will no doubt be critical."

Indeed, the interview doesn't delve much at all into the potential problems that solar will have to overcome in order to be a true contender.

As HeroesAll writes, "The problem most often mentioned with regard to renewables is reliability: wind doesn't always blow, sun doesn't always shine ... Another issue, especially if you've got diverse plants, whether solar or wind, is the loss of power over distance."

Part of that problem can be solved with "a high-voltage DC line that doesn't have the same problems as the high-voltage AC line, so it can carry the power over great distances," the reader concludes.

This is one of the more paramount points with all renewables. Our grid currently isn't structured to handle disparate power sources and carry them over long distances (as would be necessary to get wind energy to less windy areas), but instead is built to funnel energy from one large centralized unit, such as a coal-burning plant.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: biofuels, wind power, renewable energy, alternative energy, solar power

Tara Lohan is a managing editor at AlterNet.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Environment! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
CIGS, not silicon
Posted by: Logic's Edge on Dec 11, 2006 12:34 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"I'd love to believe that a solar revolution is inevitable, but is there enough silicon?"

I suppose people just aren't going to listen until they start wondering where all the solar panels are appearing from, but I'll try again:

Silicon may very well be out of the equation due to the development of thin-film solar technology.

Here are some web sites of thin-film solar companies:

Nanosolar
Miasole
First Solar

There are others. Investment is exploding.

"What about the problems of intermittency?"

Deep-cycle battery storage has been feasible for a long time. However, I'd like to think that this new technology will turn your house into a fuel stop for your car as well, in terms of recharging the magnesium medium in the Hydratus apparatus:

Ecotality

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: CIGS, not silicon Posted by: sphoenix
» RE: CIGS, not batteries Posted by: Edward George
» RE: CIGS, not batteries Posted by: Logic's Edge
» RE: CIGS, not silicon Posted by: Logic's Edge
» RE: CIGS, not silicon Posted by: Slonezy
» RE: CIGS, not silicon Posted by: Logic's Edge
I'm all for decentralization
Posted by: Lizmv on Dec 11, 2006 1:47 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If we're going to reshape our energy infrastructure, why not do some reshaping of our economic infrastructure at the same time? One of the central arguements against the Cape Wind project in Nantucket Sound (which was almost never mentioned in the media) was who should benefit from the local bioregion's resources. Harnessing wind and tidal energy is the ideal solution for the Cape and Islands, but it must be locally owned, locally controlled.
An important Permaculture principle is to recycle all energy as much as possible before allowing it to leave the system. Think of money as just another form of energy (human-produced energy). Keeping money flowing within a local community, recycling as many times as possible, will build a strong LOCAL economy that is able to withstand the economic storms that can trash the global economy. Allowing a corporation to use local resources for profit drains energy (money) from the local community.
Corporations are not all evil. A corporation is really just a tool, how it is used determines the outcome. A good example of a locally owned corporation is the Green Bay Packers. Ownership of the stock is limited to residents of Green Bay. My daughter was watching a Packers game a few weeks ago and one of the sportscasters remarked that a home game always had a packed stadium, the only team he knew of that always had standing room only. The local population is invested in their team and all profit is returned to the local community.
Samso Island off the coast of Denmark, with no conventional energy sources, has developed a remarkable system of renewable energy that also economically benefits the residents. (Google Samso Island)
This can be done anywhere!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

a solar future
Posted by: brandweerspuit on Dec 11, 2006 3:32 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The problem that many of us have with solar is that we are attempting to imagine the future in too much detail. Look at the early cars - they were truly horseless carriages. Could anyone have imagined what they would be like 150 years later?
We need to invest far more R & D into solar - in one hour enough sunlight falls on earth to power the entire planet - yet we are lucky if we manage to convert 10% of the light into power. There are some promising research avenues being explored and the more governments regulate to encourage the use of renewables the more people will invest into the research.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: a solar future Posted by: Doubtom
» RE: a solar future Posted by: ALANHESTER
» RE: a solar future Posted by: Logic's Edge
range of promising options
Posted by: ctguy on Dec 11, 2006 3:50 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There are a lot of possibilities for generating power in the future, including solar, wind, wave action, biofuels and fuel cells. If we invested properly, and with the appropriate level of urgency, we could make great progress. But solar is just one possibility out of many.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Enough silicon, and other thoughts
Posted by: marc in MD on Dec 11, 2006 4:48 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
For those worried about whether there's enough silicon for solar cells to go around, relax: it's the second most abundant element in the earth's crust. The problem isn't finding silicon, it's purifying it and doping it with the correct cocktail of other metals.

Second, for those who claim that solar energy is one option among many, well, it's not. Solar energy, broadly considered, is the only game in town. Every energy source we currently draw from is ultimately derived from the sun (or from other suns. Tidal energy may be an exception to this broad statement, but you could quibble your way out of that if you really wanted.) Solar energy powers photosynthesis, which in the short runs yields biofuels, and in the long run yields coal and oil. Solar energy creates wind. Solar energy evaporates water so that it can be redistributed through streams and rivers and incidentally, through hydroelectric power plants.

'And what about nuclear energy?' some of the wise-asses in the audience ask. Most elements heavier than hydrogen and helium are built up through successive stages in a star's development. The really heavy elements, including the radioactive and relatively unstable ones that are used in atomic fission, are created in the cataclysmic events at the end of a star's life. As XTC sings, 'We're all light."

So, the question isn't whether solar energy is a viable answer to humanity's energy problems. The question is, what flavor of solar energy do we use, based on efficiency, practicality, and long term environmental effects?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

A Manhattan Project for energy
Posted by: ggmurray on Dec 11, 2006 5:00 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I still feel energy is the Number One issue. I think it deserves the same urgent treatment as ending the war, but I do not think we can afford to WAIT UNTIL THE WAR IS OVER TO BEGIN to tackle this vital challenge. After all, what is America without fossil fuel? How do we power our industries, heat our homes, fuel our vehicles, planes and trains? Do we go back to the Stone Age?

I believe it is time for a Manhattan Project for energy for America - and the world. But certainly America. No more fossil wars. Develop every possible clean source of energy and the infrastructure to deliver it to regular people. Maybe there will be solar panels on every rooftop, windmills in every neighborhood, ocean wave energy collectors, maybe even clean nuclear (if that is possible). Certainly hydrogen, and
who knows what else. There will be some years of transition as the technology sorts itself out, just as we have seen in the computer industry. This is the future and we should point the way.

Gail Murray
West Greenwich, RI

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Is Solar PART of the Future ?
Posted by: itchyvet on Dec 11, 2006 5:19 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
YES, DEFINATELY YES not a doubt in my mind.
Consider land that's degraded and useless for any agricultural use can be utilised for solar collectors and without any further outlay, electricity generated and sold to the grid, generating income for the land owner.
Pie in the sky ? Hardly, if the Germans can do it in Europe, why can't countries that have an even better distribution of sunlight then they do in Europe ?
Another thing I saw in this article was the claim that AC power could not be distributed over distances, that DC would be more efficient >
Err , excuse me folks, but from whence did the writter get his info from ? Clearly, they should avail themselves of a new source. Think Tesla .
Why did we adopt AC over DC in the first place folks ?
Think about it, do some homework, you'll discover AC leaves DC for dead, especially over long distances.
For example, how does one go about stepping up voltage of DC ?
This is a very simple procedure for AC.
Also the switch gear and wiring, specially for heavy currents are expensive and cumbersome, Awww heck what am I doing explaining the pros and cons, do yer own home work, suffice to say the author has no idea of what they're talking about and if people such as these are going to be listened too, we are in very serious trouble indeed.

If every home that's built from today, is fitted with sufficient solar collectors to generate sufficient power for their use and even sell surplus to the grid, the need for base load stations would be reduced dramatically.
There are huge areas of wasteland/badlands ect in many countries that could very easily be utilised for power generation via solar collectors all it requires is the will.
Further, there's no reason why such collectors could not be privately owned either.
One issue that seems to get very little explanation is the power demand when solar collectors cannot collect due to cloud cover or darkness.
This can be overcome very easily by HYDROGEN generators powered by solar power generating hydrogen and collecting said hydrogen for power generation under those circumstances.
Again, all it requires is the will of people.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

And Solar's Not Just for Houses Anymore
Posted by: boatboy_srq on Dec 11, 2006 5:27 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In addition to whole home solar power (a very real concept that California has been using for some time), we have solar-friendly transportation becoming a more practical option. Whether it's the AC-adapted Prius or the Tesla sports coupe, electric or electric-augmented automobiles with near-zero fossil fuel consumption are becoming practical.

And just recently Island Pilot announced development of a deisel-solar-electric motoryacht. The prototype will be at the Miami boat show, with production models available later that year. Preliminary tests indicate the design is substantially successful.

The biggest roadblocks to solar power deployment are the cost of the arrays and the general lack of public support for them (by which I mean lack of support from government). California has had subsidies for solar systems for years, but Florida only announced theirs this year (and it's a fraction of California's), and many other states have yet to act. For the moment at least, the option to disconnect from the power grid is available almost exclusively to those with the capital to invest in the systems that would allow disconnection. If we're to move forward with this technology and the promise of energy independence there must either be radical cost reduction for the materials or more energetic support from public authorities - and with this [mal]administration taking no action in that direction the short term prospects are poor.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Not one word about conservation and waste reduction... sigh
Posted by: toddcory on Dec 11, 2006 7:11 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Another article about renewable energy... with NO MENTION about the foundation for our future clean energy choices, namely conservation, efficiency improvements and waste reduction.

Folks, we live on a finite sized planet with finite resources. I know conservation is a dirty word for many in the USA, but picking the low hanging fruit is job one.

Our home is a prime example. While the national average for energy consumption is around 30 kWh a day, we worked very hard to lower our consumption and increase our efficiency and we are down to using 15 kWh a day now, which includes the power to run the heat pump for home heating here in our snowy winters. Once that was done, a "small" 3 kW solar electric system has taken us to zero energy. Our system is grid tied so we bank a surplus all summer and consume this during the winter.

If we are talking about sustainability, throwing a ton of renewable energy resources to compensate for waste and unconsciousness is more of the dead end thinking that got us into this deep hole in the first place.

Job #1: Waste reduction, conservation, efficiency improvements

Job #2 Solar thermal/ SDHW

Job #3 Solar electric/ wind/ micro hydro

Todd Cory
Mt. Shasta Energy Services

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The sun is the only real "renewable" energy source.
Posted by: disenfranchised on Dec 11, 2006 8:31 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The only external energy source available to us is the sun. Its energy is distriuted broadly across the face of the planet collected as biological growth, recycling water evaporation and precipitation, moving the atmosphere as wind, and shaking the molecules of all sorts of matter. Some substances respond by giving off heat and a very few, electricity. All should be exploited, and all have limitations and drawbacks. Wind, photovoltaic, and heat collection have the least likelihood of causing environmental stress. Wind is more attractive in rural areas due to current technological limits. However, both photovoltaic and heat energy can be collected from every roof. Every roof should be a collector, contributing to the larger power grid. Supplmented by night-time hydroelectric or even fuel-burning generation, such a grid with widely distributed collectors would be more reliable than the current approach.

This would require a fundamental shift in our government away from private wealth development toward a system that serves the common good. That won't happen here.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

There were panicky articles in the 1890s
Posted by: karma_ran_over_dogma on Dec 11, 2006 9:10 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
about how our city streets were going to be buried in all that horse manure in the future.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Not One Answer-Many Answers= A Solution
Posted by: NoPCZone on Dec 11, 2006 9:26 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The first step to a sustainable energy future is efficiency. The more efficient our homes, appliances, transport and manufacturing is the less capacity will have to be built. Most American homes are relatively inefficient, are filled with inefficient appliances and stuff made by inefficient manufacturing processes and are connected to the world by inefficient transport. This has got to change.

A new national building code mandating energy efficiency combined with new CAFE type standards on transport and minimum efficiency standards for all appliances can shift market demand and drive the economics of converting our power matrix to a more sustainable model. Eliminating the massive subsidies for long haul truck and air transport in favor of more energy and environment friendly trains is also a good start. A similar change in public spending and subsidy from private autos to light rail, bus and other forms of commuter transit.

The next logical step is conversion from carbon-based power generation to wind, solar, tidal surge and improved hydro power. There is more than enough potential capacity in the US to generate most, if not all, of our electrical needs via these technologies. By improved hydro, I mean retrofitting existing dams with higher efficiency power generating turbines.

The final thing necessary to enable this transition is the use of advanced storage technologies to hold excess capacity at low demand for surge needs. This can be accomplished by a wide variety of means- some simple and some not so simple. The main thing is to get started on the construction.

Some of the conversion will be difficult and take time, but some is astoundingly simple, inexpensive and can be quickly deployed. Here are two examples:

1- The biggest energy hog on an annualized basis in most homes is the hot water heater. A fact not known commonly is that a significant majority of Americans live in places where solar hot water is highly practical and efficient. Our nation could quickly retrofit existing housing for Solar Hot Water and mandate it in all new construction where it is practical.

2- The lighting in most homes is still the inefficient incandescent lamp. Modern LED & compact fluorescent lighting produce the same light for a fraction of the energy and have a longer replacement cycle. Additionally, fiber-optic light tubes can be used to replace electric lighting with free sunlight in many residential and commercial spaces.

It's time to think different and it's time to get started.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Note the opposition
Posted by: ReallyBearish on Dec 11, 2006 10:51 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There is substantial effort in the US to block any real change in energy usage. Just consider the blockage of getting the Smart car into the American market. It's small, cheap, fuel efficient and not to be sold here, even though it's been sold in Europe for more than a decade. Given the rounded design, it's actually safer than the typical subcompact.

Sales are supposed to begin in 2008, but look for devices to lower sales, if they begin at all.

You might also note that the turbine engine was about to blow the piston engine out of auto racing, until rules changes outlawed its use. (Don't want to develop simpler, better, cleaner, cheaper technology, do we?)

We don't need a big revolution to start us moving towards energy efficiency and solar power. We need to stop the low level vandalizing from corporate America.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Note the opposition Posted by: ALANHESTER
How will the "new energy" products save us, when their manufacture depends on oil?
Posted by: fool-on-the-hill on Dec 11, 2006 11:47 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
So long as the manufacturing infrastructure is totally dependent on a petroleum-based economy, mass production of the needed quantity of solar batteries, hydrogen cells --- even windmills --- is a fantasy. We need the "new energy" to provide manufacturing cabability FOR the "new energy"!

Unless some modern wizard (NOT Gandalf or Harry Potter) can find a way for the modern world to pull itself by its bootstraps, these "solutions" will remain a luxury available only to a priveleged few --- if any --- and available for them only so long as the petroleum-based economy lasts!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Agreed Posted by: ssmit355
» RE: Agreed Posted by: fool-on-the-hill
A Broader view of Solar in our energy mix
Posted by: deanwj on Dec 11, 2006 11:55 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Currently, when we think of Solar Energy, the discussion focuses on Photo Voltaic (PV) arrays attached to a residence, or set up in a field. This, it seems, proves to be economically feasible, especially in California where it is subsidized by the state government. That is good. It decentralizes production and it is long overdue. PV systems should enjoy the same luxury of subsidies as the oil, gas and utility companies.

The highest return on investment is now and has always been conservation, and that is ignored. When utilized along with the oft ignored solar thermal energy a much larger chunk of our dependency on petroleum is set aside. This won't make the oil companies rich, and so it is not part of the public discussion from our corporate media.

The fact is that converting sun to electricity at 15% with very efficient systems, and then converting that electricity to heat at 80% efficiency does the job at resultant 12% efficiency and is thus a waste, when compared to converting the sun directly into heat at the 70% efficiency we see in a solar hot water heater, solar space heater or a solar greenhouse.

These solar thermal systems become economically viable heating systems and even cooling systems if coupled with our old friend conservation with a quicker payback than with PV systems. But we don't hear anything about this in the current discussion. If we hear anything it is negative. This is short sighted. Passive solar thermal systems are relatively cheap and don't break or wear out.

For more information on solar thermal energy see below:
Practical Action Solar Thermal Energy
Free Solar
Attached Solar Greenhouse
Solar Greenhouses

Or just Google on the subject.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Disneyland has the answer! Posted by: WitchyNy
» Reality! Posted by: ssmit355
Dc vs. AC trans ission lines
Posted by: dkm on Dec 11, 2006 3:43 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I may be missing something, but I am under the impression that the reason we went to AC over Mr. Edison's objections was that it is transmissible much further than DC is. DC had the problem that it degraded so fast that there had to be generators practically on each block of NY in order to electrify the city using DC.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Hydrogen my friends hydrogen
Posted by: Hairog on Dec 11, 2006 4:07 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You use hydrogen to store the energy. Use solar/wind to produce hydrogen from water and then store it for when the wind isn't blowing. You can use the hydrogen to run any internal combustion engine or heat a liquid to turn a turbine etc. All it takes to produce electicity is moving that wire coil and magnet.

Use plug in hybrids for your transport, home generators that run on hydrogen to produce electricty when the sun and wind aren't doing they're thing, wind and solar to produce the hydrogen when they are doing their thing, tap water or recycle the water made from the internal combustion of the generator to provide the h2o etc.

If need be centralize the production of hydrogen by creating floating wind farms on the Great Lakes seperating the hydrogen and pumping it to waiting storage facilities that pump it later to massive power generating turbines etc. Put the water back into the lakes and do it again.

If the power is needed in areas without water you transport the hydogen by rail, pipeline or what ever to where it is needed using hydrogen powered trains. NASA has transported millions of gallons of hydrogen for use in the space program quite successfully.

Keep plugging away at the fuel cell and were all set.

The only real problem is we have to start now. I mean right now.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Paul Wilkins
Posted by: inkings on Dec 11, 2006 4:51 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I have been using solar electricity since 1980. My house and computer are solar powered. I use the grid for backup battery charging and 2 large appliances. Go look at
http://www.homepower.com
for all sorts of good ideas.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Flights of Fancy
Posted by: ssmit355 on Dec 11, 2006 5:03 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Too much of all of the alternative energy system are dependent on oil. From the forging of fine metals and the plastic coating wires, to the transportation of goods to the pretty site in the sun, oil drives all energy systems.

For US or us to find a way to have solar or wind be the foundational energy source will require loads of capital commitment and massive psychological adjustments. And even then it may not be practical or possible. To build a long-haul vehicle that can transport enough equipment to outfit and maintain a solar plant, or many individual solar plants, is (almost--oh, these paranthetical notations represent a ridiculous level of hope) foolish.

We live in the Industrial Age--all of us always have--and industry is built and fueled by oil. Please keep trying though, because the concepts y'all put forth represent a gentler transistion from the IA back to living on the land; much gentler than can be expected with tidal wave of horror that global warming and peak oil bring with them. (Overpopulation prehaps instigates a big portion of this--but the prior two will take care of overpopulation abruptly.)

Grass roots organization--do your literal job--dig your roots deep--the onslaught of transitioning to back-to-the-land living may be severe and terrifying.

There is no way out. (Except--Camping Forever.)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

too bad solar can't be used to kill people
Posted by: lonpine on Dec 11, 2006 5:21 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
woulda had high performing solar technology by now

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

A superconducting power grid
Posted by: launcher on Dec 11, 2006 6:07 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I read a Scientific American article recently about the advantages of a massive superconducting grid. It would carry superconductors AND the liquid hydrogen necessary to cool it, both of which are energy sources. Apparently, the grid would be much more efficient in terms of distributing power over a long distance.

Expensive, but maybe a good investment in the long run??

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

reduce,reuse and recycle.
Posted by: Mr. Heathen on Dec 11, 2006 11:43 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We don't need more stinking batteries. We need to reduce use. Because of the numbers, this will have to be made mandatory.
New houses should be required to have solar panels (should have the last 30 years).
Incentives should be provided for those who can, to
invest in new solar and wind generators.
These should be connected to the existing grid so that the meter on your house will run slower or even backwards. This is already being done. But, the "BIG BOYS" are fighting it. Pass these measures, and they'll be fighting each other. That's what we want. Tell your congress. And tell them again.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: reduce,reuse and recycle. Posted by: Logic's Edge
First things first
Posted by: talula29 on Dec 12, 2006 7:08 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We need to focus on conservation first and foremost. The most energy efficient kilowatt is the one we dont use. Renewables become MUCH more feasible if we are efficient about our energy use in the first place.

I am also really glad that mountaintop removal has been discussed. It is the largest environmental and human rights tragedy happening in America RIGHT NOW. Its something we all need to learn about and stand up against. For more info, PLEASE go to www.iLoveMountains.org. Watch the video, then sign the petition. 474 mountains, 2000 miles of streams, and whole communities have been devestated already. Help stop the madness.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Small Nuclear War Would Cause Global Environmental Catastrophe
Posted by: rwa on Dec 12, 2006 8:32 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
by Jeanna Bryner

SAN FRANCISCO - A small-scale, regional nuclear war could disrupt the global climate for a decade or more, with environmental effects that could be devastating for everyone on Earth, researchers have concluded...

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/1211-05.htm

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

One foot in front of the other..
Posted by: dyspeptic on Dec 12, 2006 9:44 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As is proving true in the auto industry, waiting for "the powers that be" to lead change is a losing proposition. Early adopters just have to be willing to pay the premium, individually, for new technology. As one can see from the wild sales of hybrid vehicles and the mad market in older diesel vehicles to run on bio-diesel, business will eventually catch on and start chasing the market. Nobody has a vested interest in distributed generation except the individuals who benefit from it. Waiting for the losers in this equation -- the centralized mega-businesses -- to lead change is loony. Their interests are too deeply and completely aligned against it.

Carry on!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Sheesh, it isn't either/or
Posted by: praedor on Dec 12, 2006 3:44 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
So what that the wind doesn't blow all the time, or that the sun doesn't shine all the time? The answer, then, for those that whine about these facts is to what? Not do anything and just stick with coal?

This is real easy to grasp : NO new home should be permitted to be built without solar water heating and photovoltaics. For older homes, there should be major, big state and federal tax incentives and even subsidies for adding solar water heat and photovoltaics (and wind generators when applicable). If most homes in the US had each, the amount of coal or natural gas or nuclear energy required to drive the country would be decreased substantially. That in and of itself is a very good thing. For many homes, most of their power requirements could come from solar and/or wind...and it shouldn't only be an option for the wealthy (hence the substantial federal and state incentives).

No realestate developer should be permitted to build homes that are not VERY energy efficient AND that do not include from the design stage, solar heating and electric. No new home should be built with incandescent bulbs - only compact fluorescents. Done properly, we could dispense with many of our coal-fired powerplants AND a good number of hydroelectrics as well. Power plants should only exist to cover periods of poor sunlight or excess use rather than be THE main source of power.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]