Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Is the Future of Silicon Valley Solar?

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the not-any-time-soon dept.

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?"

16 of 309 comments (clear)

  1. We need to look into more alt. energy by citizen132 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:We need to look into more alt. energy by MtViewGuy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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....

  2. A small mistake in the article by Cyberax · · Score: 5, Informative

    "Solar electricity can be produced by means of photovoltaic arrays (based on the photoelectric effect discovered by Albert Einstein) or by using conventional heat engines whereby solar energy is used to power a turbine. Solar heat is simpler still, requiring only a blackbody and a mechanism for storing and transferring heat"

    Einstein didn't dicsover photoelectric effect, he has EXPLAINED it (and earned a Nobel Prize for it).

  3. Sun Microsystems? by TheUnknownOne · · Score: 5, Funny

    What about Sun Solar Panels?

  4. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  5. Not a bad idea by The+Redwin · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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)

    1. Re:Not a bad idea by mbkennel · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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?

  6. The problem with alt.energy by geoffrobinson · · Score: 3, Funny

    Anyone can post to that newsgroup. You get advertising and all sorts of off-topic posts.

    I'd rather have sci.energy or even rec.energy.

    --
    Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
  7. No consumer appeal, no 'wow' factor by shaneh0 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The Personal Computer has always been a very compelling product. It appeals to business, parents, students, teachers, gamers, etc.

    This is the reason they've sold so well.

    I just don't see it happening with solar panels. Personally, I don't want to be in the electricity production business. How many people actually do?

    I'm more for the advancement of Fusion technology discussed yesterday. It's clean AND it doesn't waste my time.

  8. Re:Intel by rxmd · · Score: 4, Informative

    Intel and AMD both still run their own production facilities. In fact, Intel makes sure that the layout of the fabs is identical, so that production parameters are transferable from one fab to another. As a result, their fabs are designed for producing microprocessors, and making major changes in this general alignment would be rather difficult. IBM, on the other hand, runs a more diversified system of fabs.

    You are probably confusing this with companies such as ARM. They are merely a chip design and intellectual property company now, however in spite of the "merely" this is still an enormous economic asset in today's tech arena.

    --
    As a state gets corrupt, its laws multiply; the most corrupt states have the most numerous laws. (Tacitus, Annales 3:27)
  9. Astropower by mercuryresearch · · Score: 4, Informative

    FYI, this is already done in a way, as far as Intel helping to build solar panels goes.

    Astropower is a US solar panel manufacturer that gets many of its solar cell silicon wafers through recycling programs with Intel. TI, etc. See here. They basically take bad/test wafers, clean them up, and use them for silicon solar cells.

    I'm building a 100% solar home and already have a kW of capacity installed, and went with Astropower for several reasons, the above included.

  10. Energy Efficiency by standards · · Score: 5, Informative

    The article goes on and on about how Silicon Valley can capitalize on the solar energy business (and other forms of high-efficincy energy production). There are a couple new and exciting renewable energy companies in the valley.

    The first order of business for an energy consumer should be to minimize energy consumption. The economics are simple: a reduction in demand will reduce costs.

    Many people are shocked when they learn that it's very easy to save $1000 in energy costs a year by spending less than $100 and an hour's worth of time. This guy and this guy seemed to do just about nothing for 50% energy savings.

    Even though it's always exciting to look at the state of the art in the energy business, it's more useful (but less exciting) to look at how it impacts you personally.

  11. More details on the history by totoanihilation · · Score: 3, Informative
    Here's an excerpt of a paper I wrote a while back:

    The physical phenomenon responsible for converting light to electricity -- the photovoltaic (PV) effect -- was first observed in 1839 by French physicist Edmond Becquerel, when he noted that two identical electrodes in a weak conducting solution would produce a voltage if one of the two electrodes was iluminated [1]. Later, W.G. Adams and R.E. Day (1877) observed the effect in a solid, selenium [4].
  12. Philips already does this by Free+Bird · · Score: 4, Interesting

    While not a Silicon Valley company but instead residing in The Netherlands, Philips already has a solar panels division. And it makes a lot of sense, because they're active in both lighting (solar panels are just the inverse of what they've been doing for over a century) and semiconductors (so they have lots of "waste" silicon which is useless for ICs, but not for solar panels).

    So, yeah: get with the times, Silicon Valley! ;P

  13. Re:Nor Intel or Solar Power will solve the problem by Shao+Ke · · Score: 3, Informative

    Actually, solar panels last decades without deteriorating significantly.
    Also, the payback myth is just that - a myth:
    http://www.otherpower.com/otherpower_solar_ new.htm l
    I have 6kw on top of my house, and I expect they will probably be working even after I'm gone. I'm only 34 now.
    It also sells electricity back to the grid during peak consumption times. Perfect.

  14. Solar Cells DO recoup their energy costs! by hmbJeff · · Score: 3, Informative
    Please stop repeating these urban myths about solar panels. They in fact do recoup their manufacturing energy input relatively quicky.

    As quoted in Home Power Magazine

    Some skeptics of solar energy claim that it takes more energy to make a photovoltaic module (PV) than it can ever produce in its lifetime. The truth is that PVs typically recoup their embodied energy in two to four years. According to an article published by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), today's single and multicrystalline modules have an energy payback of about four years, and thin-film modules about two years. Most PV modules in the field are made from hyper-pure crystalline silicon. Purifying and crystallizing the silicon consumes the most energy in making these PVs. Thin-film PVs are made from considerably less semiconductor material, and therefore have less embodied energy in them. Most of the energy consumed is in the thin-film surface. The aluminum frame on any PV accounts for about six months of its payback time. Solar energy is an amazing technology considering that PVs go on to produce clean, pollution-free energy for at least 25 to 30 years after they have achieved payback.

    For more information on energy payback, see the National Renewable Energy Laboratory's Web site (www.nrel.gov) and Karl Knapp & Theresa Jester's article titled "PV Payback"in HP80. --Eric Grisen eric.grisen@homepower.com

    Also, concerns about lifetime and hail resistance are red herrings. Most panels are warranted for full rated output for at least 20 years and most have performed well beyond those timeframes. Also all panels are UL tested to meet UL hail resistance specifications (which I believe covers hail up to 2" in diameter).

    Finally, no one bitches when a gas-fired generator fails to recoup its energy cost of manufacture--it requires billions of additional therms of natural gas over its operating lifetime to produce electricty and never pays back its manufacturing energy cost. It is disingenuous to ask that only of solar (and odd since solar can actually do it!