Slashdot Mirror

The US DOE estimates a fridge uses 725W source. Lets say they have 1000 ft^2 of roof space that is all solar panels. That would provide ~20,000W with your number of 20W/ft^2 (this is highly variable though). Looks to me like that house could have 27.5 fridges running off of those solar panels. That's definitely better than you suggest.

Obsolete information. People are largely unaware of the full gamut of renewable energy technologies. Even so, the Department of Energy did an extensive study that said that Texas, Kansas, and North Dakota could supply the country's full energy needs from wind energy alone, but we're not just talking solar panels and turbines.

We could slash building energy requirements drastically: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_solar_building_design
Move to peer-to-peer microgrids which by the redundancy of many diverse small energy sources would fill gaps in baseload, reduce the need for redundant large powerplants and losses to electric resistance: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/sep/09/uk-island-micro-grid-wales
Consider alternatives for urban and suburban transit that would on today's grid be the equivalent of 300MPG cars: http://www.jpods.com/
For 24/7 baseload, use offshore wind and concentrated solar thermal: http://www.solarreserve.com/
Not to mention use solar thermal for hot water, a highly affordable approach: http://www.energysavers.gov/your_home/water_heating/index.cfm/mytopic=12850

These are proven solutions with excellent working examples. You can also look at kites: http://ecoble.com/2008/08/26/wind-power-generated-from-kites/ for cheaper material costs or extending power generation to altitudes where the wind is constant, panels of windbelts for smaller-scale solutions as on http://www.humdingerwind.com/ and artificial photosynthesis. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_photosynthesis

They're also making great strides towards net-positive fusion using lasers: https://www.llnl.gov/str/Petawatt.html

I think the full range of these makes nuclear strictly a question of how to use the remaining nuclear fuel to the fullest extent with less waste left over. I don't understand the enthusiasm for nuclear in the light of the above, or the recent disasters.

This is why it's recommended to simply leave fluorescent lights on if you are going to leave them off for only 15 minutes. In fact, the more energy efficient a bulb is, the less often it makes sense to turn it off and back on again, and thus the longer it will last, saving you even more money. I think eventually LEDs will become more popular than CFLs, but they're still very dim and expensive.

An Energy Star purchase can also get you some tax credits and rebates.

If you are using propane for heating you may want to look into building a solar hot water heating system. http://www.energysavers.gov/your_home/water_heating/index.cfm/mytopic=12850. Assuming you target an 80% solution (aka use 80% less fuel than you did) they can useually pay for them selves in 3 to 7 years. With larger scale systems having a faster payback time.

http://www.energysavers.gov/renewable_energy/ocean/index.cfm/mytopic=50010 Temperature differences are probably a better way to go, where pumping the colder water from the depths provides much more energy than it takes.

they should be able to pump the hot water out and back into the water system.

That hot water being introduced into the eco system messes it up.

Just think, you could have an entire city that doesn't need individual hot-water tanks!

Hot water tanks are an inefficient use of energy. They have to keep recycling on and off using a lot of energy. Now if solar water heaters are used they lower the electricity or gas that would otherwise be used. As would instant on water heaters. But heated water that's pumped out of a system can be used. Congeneration systems were used in New York City by Thomas Edison. He used the hot water from cooling his plants to heat building when it was cold. Northern Europe uses cogeneration a lot.

Falcon

"There is no initial power surge to turn on a light. Where the hell are people getting this retarded idea?"

Actually, for a CFL there is. It just isn't significant (equivalent of a few seconds' operating time). So while people may have mis-conceptions about what it means, I'd hardly call it a "retarded idea". Perhaps you should reserve the insults for when you are factually correct.

Here's what the U.S. Dept. of Energy has to say on the matter; you'll want to read about half way down the page, 3rd paragraph under "Flourescent Lighting".