Slashdot Mirror

i'm old

So am I.

...

BTW, if you're into Zen, you might want to think a bit about MuMon.

Otherwise, don't worry yourself about the "Mindless" moniker, it's really not worth your trouble.

Well, sir, you obviously must be speaking from experience, since you seem to have been huddled in a freezing cave (or more likely, your mom's basement) for the last 15 years. Welcome to the world of today, where, thanks to continuing technological advancement, it takes less than 4 years for an average solar panel to produce enough energy to create another one (and they last for 20-30 years...) Allow me to quickly run you through some of the milestones you missed while in stasis:
1997: http://www.csudh.edu/oliver/smt310-handouts/solarpan/pvpayback.htm
2008: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=solar-cells-prove-cleaner-way-to-produce-power
2012: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_cell_efficiency#Solar_cells_and_energy_payback
2050: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sahara_Solar_Breeder_Project
OK, that last one is a bit utopian with current technology, but given better superconductors and/or thermal insulators, and some more hikes in energy prices, I could see it becoming reality. The panels themselves are up to it...

I might be feeding a troll here, but I did a quick search and found this. Depending on the type of cell and the manufacturing process and where the panels will be deployed, somewhere between 1 and 3 years, while panels typically come with a 20 year warranty and will likely last 30 to 40 years. That study is from 2000, manufacturing may have become more efficient since then.

Liar.

Here is a paper from 15 years ago from the University of New South Wales.

The above summary shows that energy payback times for modules incorporating thick silicon cells are, at worst, of the order of six to seven years and possibly less than three years. Since warranty periods of 20 years are routinely offered on such modules[ ] it is clear that the embodied energy should be easily recovered.

I'm willing to bet the efficiency has increased.

http://www.csudh.edu/oliver/smt310-handouts/solarpan/pvpayback.htm

Heres another source: (pdf warning)

Energy payback estimates for rooftop PV systems are 4, 3, 2,
and 1 years: 4 years for systems using current multicrystalline-
silicon PV modules, 3 years for current thin-film modules,
2 years for anticipated multicrystalline modules, and
1 year for anticipated thin-film modules (see Figure 1).
With energy paybacks of 1 to 4 years and assumed life
expectancies of 30 years, 87% to 97% of the energy that
PV systems generate won’t be plagued by pollution, greenhouse
gases, and depletion of resources.

http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy04osti/35489.pdf

In short you are a liar in at least the solar panel area.

But why not stick to the illusion that "energy savings" advertised on the box are the absolute ultimate truth. Hey, it works for solar panels.

I'm sure the referenced articles, from the 1970s and 1980s, apply to solar cells made in the last few years.

Given that you have to separate out very small quantities of materials, so it would be a good guess that it takes a hell of a lot of energy.

But why not stick to the illusion that "energy savings" advertised on the box are the absolute ultimate truth. Hey, it works for solar panels.

there are two possible reasons why a 10 year payback period might be too short.

1) Solar cells cost energy to produce.We would like to get at least as much energy back as we put in.

The Energy Returned on Energy Invested for Solar PVs is pretty good, the payback period is less than 10 years. A 1977 Solarex study found the payback period for energy was 6.4 years. And panels come with 20, 25, even 30 year warranties.

2) Solar cells cost money to produce. When the total life energy (KWH) produced is divided into the total cost, we arrive at the cost per KWH. We would like that cost to be lower than the local power utility supply cost.

Coal and nuclear power plants cost money to build, and without subsidies they may not be built. Want to see something ironic if not tragically funny? Watch and listen as Chevron's CEO agrees to lobby with Sierra Club to end coal subsidies as well as how Rep Edward Markey crows about how "My Climate Bill 'Has Huge Subsidies For Clean Coal! Huge!'" In his speech he also says how much nuclear and other energy industries get. While they get billions of dollars all of the subsidies for geothermal, solar, and wind add up to less than $1 Billion.

Falcon

You would be better off getting people to recycle old electronics than trying and let the rockets remain disposables,

I do, but the way you have it it's either or when it can be both.

because the mass of the computers and other electronics thrown out is probably a hundred times that of the rockets each year.

When I find computers, monitors, and other electronics left out for trash I collect and save it. Now if I have to pay to recycle them I'll end up with a big bill. I've thought of posting what I have on Freecycle so that those who can use things can pick them up. I'm just concerned about whether what I have still works though, and I don't have the equipment to run tests myself.

highly inefficient things like 1970's era solar cells (which cost more fuel to make than they ever put out in energy)

I don't know about the solar PVs from much of the 1970s but I found this, Can Solar Cells Ever Recapture the Energy Invested in their Manufacture?" which says the Energy Return on Energy Invested or EROEI is a few to several years. It cites one study from 1977 that concludes the payback period is 6.4 years. The longest estimate is approximately 86 months whereas the shortest is "0.9 to 1.6 years."

However none of these include the energy used in launches.

Chemical rockets are too expensive, really. You need something cheaper, and I think that anyone who knows anything agrees that space elevators, or some other transformative solution, is required to do it.

I don't know the costs of chemical rocket launches but I agree with the rest of this.

Falcon

I've done this very successfully using liver instead of spit. You get much more dna that way, since you're using chunks of cellular matter instead of just a few stray epithelial cells.

A few words of advice- Use everclear instead of rum. Get it as cold as possible; I used a salt/ice bath. The colder the better. Instead of pouring the alcohol into the glass, decant it using a glass stirring rod or something similar ( http://www.csudh.edu/oliver/demos/gravsulf/pour-r2.jpg ). Do this as slowly as possible. Pre-chill your stir rod to keep the alcohol cold. If you use cellular matter like liver or meat, grind it with a mortar and pestle. A spoon and a bowl will work in a pinch.

It is a very neat experiment to do with kids around, since you can see the results and there's nothing too toxic involved.

-b

• The current strategy of privatization with hope for competition under independent regulation has failed in many developed and developing nations. In the US, regulators have been unable to create competition and our infrastructure has suffered.
• The large broadband incumbents have benefited from public subsidy, have failed to live up to commitments, and have used their power to defeat attempts to create competition.
• The US has little fiber in the access network today, but will have fiber to all urban and many rural homes and buildings in the long run. The question is not whether we are going to deploy new infrastructure; the question is who will own it?
• We should take the time to evaluate decentralized alternatives to near-total ownership by the incumbents. Local governments, cooperatives, small ISPs, and home and building owners might own parts of our next generation infrastructure.
• This evaluation can be fast and cheap. The work of the National Science Foundation in designing and creating NSFNet and connecting universities, colleges and foreign networks provides an excellent example of a small government staff calling on experts from academia and industry to design a network and a strategy for deploying it, followed by procurement via competitive bid.
• We need immediate economic stimulus, but that can come from tax cuts and investment in many sectors as well as broadband.
• Nobel economist Paul Krugman acknowledges the need for rapid stimulus, but says we should downplay the "jump start" metaphor and focus on job creation through infrastructure investment over the next four plus years (see http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/12/opinion/12krugman.html).
• We will be living with the fiber and high-speed wireless infrastructure we build today for many decades. We will also be living with its owners.

Click here for a paper with details on the above.

Click here for a PowerPoint presentation on the above.

• The current strategy of privatization with hope for competition under independent regulation has failed in many developed and developing nations. In the US, regulators have been unable to create competition and our infrastructure has suffered.
• The large broadband incumbents have benefited from public subsidy, have failed to live up to commitments, and have used their power to defeat attempts to create competition.
• The US has little fiber in the access network today, but will have fiber to all urban and many rural homes and buildings in the long run. The question is not whether we are going to deploy new infrastructure; the question is who will own it?
• We should take the time to evaluate decentralized alternatives to near-total ownership by the incumbents. Local governments, cooperatives, small ISPs, and home and building owners might own parts of our next generation infrastructure.
• This evaluation can be fast and cheap. The work of the National Science Foundation in designing and creating NSFNet and connecting universities, colleges and foreign networks provides an excellent example of a small government staff calling on experts from academia and industry to design a network and a strategy for deploying it, followed by procurement via competitive bid.
• We need immediate economic stimulus, but that can come from tax cuts and investment in many sectors as well as broadband.
• Nobel economist Paul Krugman acknowledges the need for rapid stimulus, but says we should downplay the "jump start" metaphor and focus on job creation through infrastructure investment over the next four plus years (see http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/12/opinion/12krugman.html).
• We will be living with the fiber and high-speed wireless infrastructure we build today for many decades. We will also be living with its owners.

Click here for a paper with details on the above.

Click here for a PowerPoint presentation on the above.

You're wrong anyway. PV panels would pay themselves back in less than fifteen years back in the seventies. Today it's even better. And using thin-film solar it ought to be possible to get it in a pretty short time WITHOUT any subsidies. A typical PV install is considered to last at least 20 years (with some maintenance, but that's part of the cost) while it will pay itself back in 15 or less, and energy costs are generally rising.

Read up on the plain view doctrine. It is what allows you to be arrested for marijuana possession if you have a bag of it sitting on your desk when the cop is in your house for some other reason (like a warrant). As long as he is not taking any action that does not pertain to the warrant, then when he sees that bag of marijuana, you can get arrested. Glancing around a room from a position the warrant allows is an action that is allowed. Searching for the thing mentioned in the warrant is allowed. He may not be searching for anything not on the warrant, but happening to see something not on the warrant that is clearly illegal can be used, as long as only allowed actions were used to find it. Do note that the thing has to be clearly evidence immediately upon viewing. If any uncertainty occurs, such as having to run an outside check or to make closer inspection of any type, then that is not immediately apparent, and is disallowed.

Two defining cases here are as follows: In the first case, a robbery occurred, with known weapons and stolen goods. A warrant was issued for the goods only. When the officer went to the residence with the warrant, he happened upon and seized the weapons as evidence. It was permissible to do so, as the weapons were clearly evidence, in plain view, and the officer was lawfully present.

In the second case, police entered a residence as a result of a shooting, and in the course of their actions, noticed some stereo equipment and ran a check on the serial numbers. They were stolen, and they were seized. This is not legal, as the equipment was not immediately apparent as evidence.

Some links:
http://www.csudh.edu/dearhabermas/plainv.htm
http://www.policelink.com/training/articles/2043-plain-view-doctrine-
http://people.w3.org/~djweitzner/blog/?p=77
http://www.google.com/search?q=search+warrant+plain+view+doctrine

That is what sets it apart from the occasional news gaffe of releasing the wrong story ("DEWEY WINS!").

They didn't release the wrong story. They had to print the paper before they knew the election results. Based on the opinion polls, Dewey was going to win, so they ran that story. But the polls were wrong.

http://www.csudh.edu/dearhabermas/sampling01.htm

The 1970's called, and said that it was time for you to move on. Solar technology certainly has.

Actually, crystalline PV panels would repay the energy cost of their investment in under seven years back then, too.

Sorry when the facts bother you, but solar only recently made it past the "break even" point in regards to energy produced over energy put in during production.

Today on slashdot, lying liars and the lies they tell.

The truth is that we have known for over thirty years that Solar Cells recoup the energy invested in their production in under seven years and may actually do it in less than one year.

Now, a nuclear plant however ...

...could be safe and efficient, but none of the designs we are using now are particularly deserving of either description (although they are not spectacularly unsafe and are probably safer than many of the coal and oil plants operating in the USA.) And the plants which have been proposed to be built any time in the near future are just more of the same shit.

We would need to start using breeder reactors to reprocess nuclear fuel in order to make building more nuclear make any kind of sense. This is not impossible.

On the issue of solar passing the break even point, however, you are like Bush talking about WMDs in Iraq. Full of fucking shit and with no possible defense other than being misled. Too bad you got modded up (obviously by big oil! heh heh)

http://www.csudh.edu/oliver/smt310-handouts/solarpan/pvpayback.htm

Actually, they do. Every single elected offical in Washington cares deeply about their country

What?

This proves that you have no idea what you are talking about.

People who care about this country are not starting illegal wars, driving up the national debt, getting rich in the process, and then taking the money out of the country and doing further harm to our economy.

Are you paid to say this shit, or are you just brainwashed?

The US is FAR from bankrupt. China's only where they are in the world because we're allowing them to grossly distort the currency exchange, because we want them to work for peanuts.

The US's debt is truly astronomical. We're overdrawn on our credit as it is.

Nuclear: Plans are on the tables, Greenpeace's founder is endorsing Nuclear... sorry, there will be new plants built or chartered by the next Presidential Election. Maybe before this one.

Greenpeace's founder's opinion is not being echoed by Greenpeace. 9 out of 10 hippies I talk to (this is not scientific but I talk to a lot of hippies) just refuse to come around to the idea of nuclear with breeder reactors. Incidentally, if we don't use breeders then using nuclear is a HORRIBLE and TERRIBLE idea; we can gain a couple orders of magnitude in efficiency this way. With breeders, nuclear can be not just practical but also profitable without subsidies.

Solar: Ok, in small batches, for small device use, in the northeast, a photovotalic cell takes more energy to create than it will produce in its lifetime.

Who told you that? It COSTS MORE TO BUY than it will save you in its lifetime, but that is the result of market forces, not physics.

Think about it for a second; a solar system pays you off monetarily in about 20 years (yes, it's a long time) even without any special energy credits. Are you really saying that the power company charges me more for power (and I'm just talking about base rates here) than the sum of the amount that they charge the people who make the panels plus the amount that those people charge me for costs plus their profit? Obviously it's not impossible, but it is also not true . It takes less than seven years at 12 percent, which is a pretty reasonable estimate of the actual efficiency output (who cleans their panels enough?) when your panels are supposed to be around 14 or 15%. And that was for crystalline PV, not thin film, which requires less energy expenditure. It wouldn't seem so at first because of the petroleum-based nature of the plastics involved, but it is so hugely energy intensive to produce pure silicon that it winds up being that way anyway. They also cost less to ship due to their mass being a small fraction of a completed PV panel.

Wind: Wind blows everywhere, some places essentially constantly. Couple a wind farm with a flywheel, and you can produce pretty damn good power. Essentially anywhere in the United States. Not eveywhere, but hardly "rare" for any meaningful definitions of that word.

Wind has real problems; it truly HAS been a problem for flocks of migratory birds, but that is a lesser issue to the fact that those wind turbines are not especially inexpensive to produce, they do make a lot of noise (we are slowly waking up to the effects of noise pollution) so you don't want one in your backyard, and they MUST be placed up in the air so that they get wind in most cases. This keeps small-scale wind from being broadly useful, although it IS useful in some places.

Of course, when the conveyor shuts down, and the jet stream shuts down, the weather patterns we take for granted are pretty much all going to change...

5: The mortgage crisis is just the tip of the iceberg. Its only going to be a matter of time before banks start having to be bailed left

First, either you are lying or you are talking about the monetary cost of a solar system. It can take 10-30 years to pay off THAT cost, but that has nothing to do with the actual cost of producing the panel, and everything to do with supply and demand and artificially inflated prices.

You have to keep in mind that right now what we're doing with our national effort is making war. Far from being profitable (unless somehow it drives the price of petroleum in the proper direction to dramatically increase the value of the dollar - kind of doubt that one) this is actually putting us into huge debt. If we simply put that effort into producing PV solar, and instead of turning it into a pork processing system :) we just did everything at-cost, we could do this shit tomorrow. Or at least get started.

As the AC sibling comment to this one says, the very first hit on your search terms is Can Solar Cells Ever Recapture the Energy Invested in their Manufacture? and the answer is yes:

The 1983 book by Hu and White [1 ] summarises the results from a 1977 Solarex study [ 2] which found an energy payback time of 6.4 years for the manufacture of solar modules using silicon cells of 12.5 per cent efficiency. In other words, these modules would need to operate for that time in order to produce as much energy as was invested in steps such as the reduction and refinement of the silicon, crystal growth, cell production and module construction. Hagedorn [ 3] presented in 1989 a study of the energy costs for photovoltaic power stations (including grid connection) of monocrystalline silicon (such as are made by BP Solar in Australia), polycrystalline silicon (such as are made by Solarex in Australia) and amorphous silicon solar cells.

So in other words, they knew in 1977 (the linked short-paper was written twenty years later) that even at then-current (no pun intended) levels of efficiency that payoff was in under seven years. Today, with thin film panels, that should be substantially less.

If we promoted solar more, and produced more of it, then the prices would go down (if everyone and their mother made a grid-tie inverter it wouldn't cost you so damned much, for example) and then the economic payoff for the end user would come much sooner. Until then, solar is pretty much for the wealthy and those living off-grid.

Something like that, yes.

This arguement keeps coming up. For some reason a group of people seem totally convinced that Solar Cells are a uselss investment as they will never pay for them selves.

First of all, this is obviously a flawed arguement. Afterall, as PV effeciencies rise (and they have been rising for many years) and manufacturing techniques improve, they will inevitably reach the point where PV start to pay for themselves (both in $$ and in energy) will continue to get shorter and shorter!

And secondly, the point is totally wrong!! As many other posters have also pointed out, Solar Panels are usually guaranteed for 20 years of operation and even the worst estimates put them at a break even date of 8-12 years.

Here is an example of the numbers you've requested.
http://www.csudh.edu/oliver/smt310-handouts/solarp an/pvpayback.htm

And lastly, the argument is self-defeating! If you're worried about the amount of non-renewable energy we as a race are using, shouldn't you be celebrating improvements in efficiency and production?
Afterall this makes it more likely that your dreams of 100% renewable energy is more likely to come true. By complaining that all the most promising enrgy break throughs in recent times are not "net efficient" you are discouraging others from doing further work in those areas. That leaves us only with the areas which we already know are unsustainable!

Is that what you'd prefer?

"if you spend more energy creating a solar cell than you get out of it in its usefull life, that's a no-brainer. It sounds good but the net is not."

That may have once been true, but it isn't true now in many cases.

See for example:
    http://www.csudh.edu/oliver/smt310-handouts/solarp an/pvpayback.htm
"The above summary shows that energy payback times for modules incorporating thick silicon cells are, at worst, of the order of six to seven years and possibly less than three years. Since warranty periods of 20 years are routinely offered on such modules[ ] it is clear that the embodied energy should be easily recovered."

Things may be worse if the cells are not used efficiently, of course.

See also:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_cell#Solar_cell s_and_energy_payback
"In the 1990s, when silicon cells were twice as thick, efficiencies 30% lower than today and lifetimes shorter, it may well have cost more energy to make a cell than it could generate in a lifetime. The energy payback time of a modern photovoltaic module is anywhere from 1 to 20 years (usually under five)[9] depending on the type and where it is used (see net energy gain). This means solar cells can be net energy producers, meaning they generate more energy over their lifetime than the energy expended in producing them.[10][11] .[12]"

This area of technology will only continue to improve (especially as several variants of solar cells use technologies similar to computer chip fabrication and printing). I use this site to track some of the progress:
    http://www.solarbuzz.com/

Because of all the resources, energy, and labour consumed in producing it.

Sorry, but that's just flat out wrong. Solar cells pay back their energy investment in as little as 6-7 years.

We are witnessing a revolution of international relations toward increasingly open and mass-scale communication. And this greatly increases the role of creative and positive policies. But equally, it raises the price of mistakes -- the price we must pay for adherence to outdated dogmas, routine and old thinking.

But what really needs to be looked at is the OVERALL cost. What I mean by this, is: What are the environmental costs of producing the panels? What byproducts does this produce (i.e. another poster mentioned product of hydrogen vehicle... H20 - on a small scale this has negligible effect, on a large scale, what would this do?)? What happens to the panels when they eventually degrade? Is this safe waste?

This provides some stats, although the methods are a bit dodgy, I think.

Also, this

It isn't clear to me what fraction of kids get solicited by adult predators (rather than fellow teens near their own ages), nor is it clear what fraction actually have any real trouble with it beyond just blocking the person. But do note that 1 in 5 girls and 1 in 10 boys will be "sexually exploited" overall.

> The original telegraphy and radiotelegraphy was created without government funding or mandate. Not true. Morse got $30,000 from Congress to build the first link. You can see a copy of the Congressional Record granting it at http://bpastudio.csudh.edu/fac/lpress/471/hout/net History/.

Also, take the recent big articles in New York Times and Fortune, calling out for MORE subsidizing of fundamental technology, because corporations can't develop it themselves. It's so costly and unprofitable, the public must subsidize the costs and risk, so private companies can privatize the profit.

Normally it's not widely admitted, except when politicians like Bush start shifting the subsidies around, making enemies.

Protectionism is just a tool. Whether it's useful (and for whom) depends on the situation.

The taxpayer picks up the costs and risk, while corporations profit.

Let's not forget Truman vs. Dewey where the Chicago Tribune announced the wrong winner. This is famous because it was the first time it happened - I believe it was the first time the election was close enough that the results were not finally known until hours after the newspaper was printed. Close elections were a rarity, so this didn't come up.

OTOH, it's a *public* university, if it's in the UC system. So then if you're a taxpayer, doesn't that kinda give you some sort of ownership rights?

I doubt it. The University is created for the public with public funds, and there are public funds paid for students who attend classes, but the fact is that a significant percentage of the money is paid by students and by donors. How many new buildings do you see showing up at any kind of school without a private grant? Unless bonds are sold to finance it, that's pretty much none. New schools, on the other hands, are occasionally built by municipalities.

Anyway the CSU's mission statement is encased in the Donahoe Higher Education Act of 1960, the meat of which can be found http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?sect ion=edc&group=66001-67000&file=66010.1-66010.8">he re.

(b) The California State University shall offer undergraduate and graduate instruction through the master's degree in the liberal arts and sciences and professional education, including teacher education. Presently established two-year programs in agriculture are authorized, but other two-year programs shall be permitted only when mutually agreed upon by the Trustees of the California State University and the Board of Governors of the California Community Colleges. The doctoral degree may be awarded jointly with the University of California, as provided in subdivision (c) and pursuant to Section 66904. The doctoral degree may also be awarded jointly with one or more independent institutions of higher education, provided that the proposed doctoral program is approved by the California Postsecondary Education Commission. Research, scholarship, and creative activity in support of its undergraduate and graduate instructional mission is authorized in the California State University and shall be supported by the state. The primary mission of the California State University is undergraduate and graduate instruction through the master's degree.

(c) The University of California may provide undergraduate and graduate instruction in the liberal arts and sciences and in the professions, including the teaching professions. It shall have exclusive jurisdiction in public higher education over instruction in the profession of law and over graduate instruction in the professions of medicine, dentistry, and veterinary medicine. It has the sole authority in public higher education to award the doctoral degree in all fields of learning, except that it may agree with the California State University to award joint doctoral degrees in selected fields. The University of California shall be the primary state-supported academic agency for research.

Anyway it doesn't say anything about ownership but the fact is that you can't even be on the property without the permission of the state and Universities typically have their own police force in order to protect them, a clear sign that they are a governmental entity. Your government doesn't really belong to you and neither do the schools. :P

You could also try looking in the CSU Archives.

Actually, the story is about Rockefeller watching every penny, not cutting corners. And he reduced the number of drops from 40 to 39: http://www.csudh.edu/hux/syllabi/554/one_2.html

That being said, the article had some good points about software engineering.

Here's the way I see it: Companies often have a hard time catching shoplifters, because, 1) they acn't (legally) restrain a person before they've left the store. (I can put a book into my pocket and still go to the checkoput and pay for it; it's not shoplifting until you've left the store.) and 2) Once you leave the building, store security can not restarin you. They can only ask you to stay. (Howver, a shoplifter is allowed to legally walk away, as only police officers are allowed to restrain them.), and 3) the store can't prosecute them unless the have evidence (video cameras will work, but the employees' words can be easily beaten in court.)

That's incorrect. In most places you can restrain and report to the police anyone you see who commits a crime. This is what a "citizen's arrest" is. A few state laws are mentioned here including DC, Tenn, Mass, Kentucky, Utah. California is mentioned here. Of course its tricky business and you can get yourself in legal trouble if you harm the person or falsely accuse them. A short guide on that is here. I remember a show where this guy comes into a cafeteria with a baseball bat. So the staff takes the bat and beats the guy for about 10 minutes. Now they restrained a lawbreaker, but they got sued theirselves. So that kind of restraint is not legal, but it is legal to have a system that automatically locks the doors so the person can't leave. By the way, I am not a lawyer so don't go out being batman without consulting a lawyer first.