Slashdot Mirror
Is the Future of Silicon Valley Solar?
Noryungi writes "In this provocative article, Brian McConnell argues that Silicon Valley, instead of staying in the saturated IT field, should apply its resources (including its chip-producing plants) into Solar Power/Renewable energy. Intel branded Solar Panels, anyone?"
if the war in iraq and the rising cost of oil have showed us anything, it's that we need to look into more alternative energy sources. producing our own solar energy would not only leave us less dependent on foriegn oil, but would also help the enviroment. we should also look at wind and water power also. hopefully in a few years time we'll be able to have some kind of program running that promote this type of thing.
Out here in sunny california, they have already been considering legislation to require a certain percentage of new built homes to have solar panels preinstalled on the roof by the contractor.
A house with these panels can provide most of its energy, and on sunny days even feed excess back into the grid (electric company pays YOU)
Considering the enery crisis, and terror threats to centralized power, it would seem irresponsible NOT to try and push for distributed solar power generation. It makes sense in almost every way (money, eco-friendly, security)
As a programmer I can honestly say that I don't think I want to work on an assembly line making solar panels. And, my science training is not at a level where I could work on new ways designing solar panels to be more efficient. I did a science fair project where I used solar energy to heat air, but I don't think anybody would want to buy boxes made of old paneling and filled with black mylar channels through which air passed. Hmmm... Maybe we could think of things that could be done with all the programmers. Surely there have got to be jokes akin to the lawyer jokes that talk about what lawyers are good for. I must admit that I've never heard any though.
Sean Lane Fuller - The truth is out there!
Here in Michigan, during the winter months we may not see the sun for a week at a time. It is cloudy, overcast, and gloomy. During the summer, we do get a lot of sunny days, but we'd never make it on solar power only for the winter months.
I don't think solar power is a very good idea for us here, we'd end up being reliant on outside energy piped in from elsewhere. We could get some use out of wind generated power, we've got plenty of that most of the time, and hydroelectricity is awlways an option...I mean we do have the Great Lakes and tons of rivers all over the state.
So here in Michigan, I doubt the "solar revolution" we be all that fantastic here even if it is out there in silicon valley. I'd never be able to live if my house were solar powered, unfortunately.
As a geek I'm sure you can see the appeal of distributed systems (ala BitTorrent, et al).
Small scale, green energy production is just that: a distributed system for generating electricity.
I, for one, do want to be a part of that and want to be part of the solution rather than part of the problem.
I'd love an electric car that runs 100% off of solar power generated at home. Now if only batteries weren't so freaking bad for the environment...
Lose Weight and Feel Great with Isagenix
For now anyway. But that's the whole point of research and development: improve the product. Just because something isn't perfect to begin with, doesn't mean that it can't be improved. Look at the development of: agriculture, automobiles, computers, weaponry, etc., etc.
Gee, apparently all the companies who have decades of experience working on solar power to improve efficiency and lower cost are a bunch of nit wits. Yeah, I want companies with no experience designing power systems working on solar--that'll work. Gimme a break.
And to imply that a 30-50% improvement makes solar a viable market is absurd. Show me a couple orders of magnitude increase in efficiency and I'll believe that there can be a market for solar beyond the niche of granola eaters living in the desert.
The computer industry was successful early on because even back in the early days when computers took up a room and were one billionth as powerful as the machine I'm writing this on now, the companies building them could make money. There was a need which could only be met by filling a building with slide rule-toting engineers or buying an expensive computer. With coal coming out our ears and oil still not that expensive, there is no great market for solar unless it gets much more cheaper; a 50% improvement isn't even close.
--Len
The problem with solar energy isn't that there isn't enough funding for them, it's that it's a bad way of generating electricity. The maximum efficiency from the current cheap silicon solar cells is about 21% - which isn't all that great. Theoretically you could build solar panels that are even more efficient - perhaps up to 70%.
Which is great, but that doesn't include the costs of transmitting that electricity. Currently electricity isn't stored, it's made as needed. You can't do that with solar. If you have a day with a high need for electricity but your production stations are getting rained on, you're screwed.
Solar has its uses, but not for widescale replacement of existing electrical infrastructure. It's not efficient enough, you can't ramp up production when needed, and it's limited to those places where you have a decent and predictable amount of sunlight. At the end of the day you can't break the laws of physics.
If we're really serious about reducing our dependence on fossil fuels, our only serious option is nuclear energy. Given that France gets 70% of its electricity from nuclear without any trouble, there's no reason that the rest of the world cannot do the same. Even the byproducts can be safely vitrified or recycled so that they pose no threat in the future.
The biggest obstacles to solar power are the laws of physics, which is why solar will never take off as a major source of power.
Solar cells = gigantic volume small value added CPUs = tiny volume, huge IP value added Silicon = completely irrelevant
This previous post deserves to be modded up for containing this sentence.
Yes, please consider this advice, fellow geeks: how many monitors are always on even when they're not used for hours? And who pays attention to buying energy-efficient servers? Green PCs with power-saving modes? Recently left on the light when you weren't in the room for hours? Do you drive a car that needs more gas than the state of the art per 100 km? You don't even know how much your car needs?
If only more people had constant awareness of such issues, and taught their children to treat energy as something precious that must never be wasted, then this might have a higher impact than technical advancement in engergy effectiveness.
--
Coolbeans! The patent-pending Nuggets , SMS search engine -- text your questions, get your answers from the Web.
Well, I think one thing that solar panel makers should do is stop focusing on absolute efficiency and start focusing on cheap. Dirt cheap. I mean so cheap that it's like buying a tarp. Put out a solar panel that is only 5% efficient but can be rolled out like a carpet and only costs a few bucks per square yard. I think you might see a revolution in power generation then. Hell, if you really want a revolution, come up with a photovoltaic roofing material that lasts for thirty years and puts power into the grid. Who cares if it is the ultimate in efficiency, if it's cheap and knocks ten bucks a month off your power bill people will go for it. Plus which, if it's that inexpensive it will end up in all new construction.
... not very efficient at first, but it was also really cheap. The world went solar after that, with entire square miles covered in the stuff, buildings, everything.
Heinlein wrote a novel based on this idea: a couple of scientists were trying to create a new kind of light source. It was simple, easy to make, and could be cast in large flat sheets (i.e., an entire wall or ceiling could generate light.) Then they discovered that it was also photovoltaic
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
Excellent point, one I have harped upon for years. Note too that Western Europe produces about the same GDP as the US, using about 1/2 the energy to do so. When you break it down per captia, we could probably reduce our consumption by ~40% without a significant decrease in 'Standard of Living' (economist speak for how much stuff you own and how much money you got, not to be confused with 'Quality of Life'; which economics is not interested in).
Even more interesting when you count in the longer vacations in Europe.
putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
Wind turbines and solar panels cost money to build and run. Splitting water for hydrogen and using that in a fuel cell or internal combustion engine results in a net loss of energy.
All power sources cost money to build and run, and all methods of energy generation result in a net loss of energy.
Even if that were true, [which it isn't] solar would save hugely on transmission costs.
Which is why it's already in heavy use in places where the load is small (road signs, yard lights, emergency phones) the location is remote (rural areas) or sometimes where solar is more reliable than the grid (areas far from the primary generation with heavy weather causing frequent line damage).
It costs an ENORMOUS amount to run power even a fraction of a mile, let alone tens of miles, for a new hookup in an area not otherwise served. Even if you're only going to count the ENERGY cost, think about how much energy it takes:
- to mine the ore and process it into steel and copper for the transformer, wires, guy wires, fittings, (and that power meter...)
- to melt the sand and make it into insultors
- to cut the trees and process them into poles
- to haul it all onsite, dig holes, set poles in them, string it up, and haul the workers back and forth from home for weeks
- to build the fraction of the rest of the grid and power plant thatbecomes dedicated to supplying power to that hookup.
THAT, not the energy supplied by the panel, is the appropriate energy to compare when looking at the panel's "energy cost". The purpose of the panel is not just to extract energy from sun, but to deliver it WHERE IT'S WANTED. The grid has an energy cost far beyond the part that's actually delivered to a remote load. Modern solar panels, on the other hand, are apparently alread, not just better in some situations, but actually a net gain (despite old rumors to the contraray). They should become moreso with further technological improvement.
In the absense of government meddling (and to a large extent even WITH government meddling), price tends to be a reasonably reliable signal of how much stuff that people value (energy, raw material, people's time, environmental quality) is being used up to provide something. When total solar systems become less expensive than grid connections (with their extreme efficiencies), it's a very good sign that they have also become less of a drain on valuable resources - including energy.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way