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?"

Comments

We need to look into more alt. energy

[citizen132]

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.

Re:We need to look into more alt. energy

[MtViewGuy]

I'll push for more wind turbines first. In California, Altamont Pass, the Carquinez Strait, and Tehachapi Pass could all get wind farms with large-sized wind turbines that could generate around 2,000 MW of power combined.

California could get large-scale solar generator farms, but given the fragility of the ecosystem in much of the Mojave Desert....

Not a bad idea

[The Redwin]

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)

Re:Not a bad idea

[mbkennel]

It would "crush" construction companies, just like those horrible building codes, mandatory insulation, double-paned safety glass, adequate sewage systems, safe electrical wiring, earthquake resistant construction and circuit breakers did.

Hmmmmm....

funny they seem to be making record profits in CA.

"Why would I want to buy a home in California if I have to install additional expensive stuff that won't get me my money back yet? I'd rather move elsewhere."

Some people aren't as shortsighted.

The technical facts are:

(*) houses and commercial buildings have a very long valuable lifetime, which is why you can get a 30 year mortgage, and why you need to.

(*) the future path of energy costs may be unknown and may be far more expensive than today. Given the known production rates and declines of North American natural gas production due to actual depletion, this is hardly unlikely. Coal is still, and will be quite polluting and worse for greenhouse emissions.

(*) energy efficient construction and self-generation may be significantly cheaper and more effective and less ugly when designed into a house when originally built. Like, say, indoor plumbing.

(*) there is a major commons economic problem with energy efficiency. You put on one new energy-guzzling house on the grid, say a big cheaply built tract home in a hot area like San Bernadino (where lots of new houses are being put up, as the cool places near the coasts are already completely full) and the customer has to pay a certain electric bill. Fine, it's their problem.

But when lots of people do that, then suddenly there is a large strain on the overall grid capacity and transmission, and the utility has to raise rates significantly for EVERYBODY (not just the new A/C guzzling houses) and everybody suffers from poor service reliability. And of course there is more demand for the limited fuel supply and the price goes up too.

The choices made in building will influence energy consumption for decades to a century.

Are you feeling lucky?