Bigger, Cheaper Solar Cells

Phenombecile800 writes "First Solar, a start-up from Arizona, is making photovoltaic cells at a fraction of the usual cost. Their secret: increasing the light-catching area 'from postage-stamp to traffic-sign dimensions,' reducing the manufacturing time to 1/10th of the competition's, and thinning the active element to 1/100th the usual thickness over a glass substrate, which enables the production of large panels. IEEE Spectrum provides some technical details about the production process. 'Glass is placed on rollers and fed into the first chamber, where it is heated to 600 C. Then it is transferred into the second chamber, which is full of cadmium sulfide vapor, formed by heating solid CdS to 700 C. The vapor forms a submicrometer deposit on the glass as it moves through this cloud, after which a similar process in a third chamber adds a layer of micrometers-thick CdTe in about 40 seconds. Then a gust of nitrogen gas rapidly cools the panels to 300 C in a fourth chamber, strengthening the material so that it can withstand hail and high winds.'"

Comments

The old green question

[gilgongo]

It's probably unanswerable, but I wonder how much energy it takes to make these cells, and how long it takes for them to offset that?

Re:The old green question

[ScrewMaster]

On the other hand, that's not the only criteria for using solar power. The upfront cost of the physical plant is significant of course, as are maintenance costs and the payback period. However, if widespread use of solar reduces overall environmental impact and lowers petroleum consumption it might still be worth it, even if the cells themselves are expensive.

What everyone seems to be waiting for is a cost-per-watt that is low enough so that ordinary people will decide to start buying them in large quantities without government subsidization. Suppose you're having a new house built: if you could install a ten or fifteen kilowatt solar plant and inverter for ten grand, you might figure it's worth it to borrow a little more money from the bank. I think we'll see more of that as our distribution grid continues to deteriorate and utility power becomes less and less reliable.

Re:The old green question

[Anonymous Coward]

It's probably unanswerable, but I wonder how much energy it takes to make these cells, and how long it takes for them to offset that?

We can answer anyway without even RTFA. The summary says that the cells are made out of glass (not hewn out of a crystalline ingot of silicon). Assuming 10% efficiency and 20% availability of sunlight (due to weather and geometry), you get approx 20W/m^2, or 1 kWh every two days.

Given that glass beer bottles cost a few cents each, a square meter of glass probably takes no more than a few dozen kWh of energy to produce. Even if the vapor deposition doubles or triples that, you still would end up with an energy surplus after just a couple of months of operation.

Re:The old green question

[ProfessionalCookie]

Maybe it makes sense to have a solar powered solar panel plant.

Re:The old green question

[Animats]

The head of Applied Materials solar division said in a talk at Stanford last year that their solar panels took two years of their own output in energy to make. They hope to get the energy breakeven point down to six months. He said the sputtering process they use in coating is energy-inefficient, and they're trying to develop something better.

Total installed energy cost is probably higher. Home solar installations are about 50% installation cost. The big open-field installations are cheaper; they have economies of scale.

Forbes mentions that Mojave Desert real estate is becoming more valuable because many companies want to build solar facilities there. There's plenty of space in California, Nevada, and Arizona for solar panels.

Mike Splinter of Applied Materials (the largest maker of semiconductor fab gear) likes to say "Everybody else's costs (in the energy business) are going up, and ours are going down. We're nowhere near market saturation. This is a great business for us."

Re:The old green question

[vertinox]

It's probably unanswerable, but I wonder how much energy it takes to make these cells, and how long it takes for them to offset that?

From my understanding, current systems (with tax rebate) pay for itself in 10 years at current prices from the end users standpoint.

However, if say conventional energy prices double again in the next 5 years, then solar panels will have payed for themselves in a much less of a time frame even without the rebate.

I think its a misnomer about how much any energy it takes to make something because the price of energy itself fluctuates with time. Lets say it might take 10 barrels of oil to create one solar panel that produces 1 barrel of energy a year saving which will pay itself off in 10 years but if oil costs $100 last year and $200 in the next 5, then your $1,000 system now is worth $2,000 and your system is creating the equivalent of $200 worth of energy saved a year therefore paying itself off in 5 years.

Hope that made sense. I'm sure the numbers are no where like that though.

Seeing that the price of sunlight is less volatile than the price oil or coal, one could really gamble that peak oil will make any investments into solar pay for itself in short order in the next decade.

Re:The old green question

[rah1420]

What everyone seems to be waiting for is a cost-per-watt that is low enough so that ordinary people will decide to start buying them in large quantities without government subsidization.

You won't see it from FSLR, unfortunately. Their output is currently (no pun intended) earmarked for commercial ventures only, no retail/residential sales. Pity. Hope that changes.

Re:The old green question

[djarum72]

Article gives the size of the glass, and some temps, so it may just be answerable. Googling for: how much energy does it take to manufacture glass, 5 hit (no direct link since its a f***in word doc)

The Recipe For 1 Ton Of Glass (Resources)
                      1300 Pounds Sand

                          400 Pound Soda Ash

                          400 Pounds Limestone

                          150 Pounds Feldspar

                  24000 Gallons Water

                      4400 KWH of Energy

So, 4400 KWH per ton.

How much do the panels weigh?

(.6 m) * (1.1 m) * (.5 cm) * (2 500 (kg / (m^3))) = 8.25 kilograms

(8.25 kilograms) * 4 400 (KWh / ton) = 144 Mj

Apart from making the glass, there is heating the glass, heating the cadmium sulfur and telluride, mining all those chemicals, etc.

Glass specific heat is .84 J/g K.

(.84 (J / g)) * 8.25 kg * 580 = 4 019 400 joules

So I've calculated 148Mj for the glass manufacture and heating.
Ignoring the cadmium, sulpher, telluride chemical mining, what do you get out of it?

(85 watts) * 25 years = 6.7 Ã-- 10^10 joules

How much coal is that? http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/eng99/eng99187.htm

6.7E10 joules) / (4.11E6 (joules / pound)) = 7 400 kg

Remember how I ignored the energy of mining those chemicals?
How does the energy compare for mining the GRAMS it would take to deposit a film of telluride compares to the energy for mining TONS of coal.

The answer to what you did ask, at least for the glass + heating, is pretty easy to answer:
(148E6 / 85) * s = 480 hours. Less than a month.

Re:The old green question

[Bombula]

It is not unanswerable at all - the cost of the product instantly answers its energy requirements. If the product is cost-effective, it logically must also be net-positive in terms of energy.

The fact that most solar solutions are still not attractive from a cost-benefit standpoint suggests that their energy efficiency is still marginal. But given that we have a new company announcing a radically transformative solar technology every other week these days, it seems likely that a genuinely cost-effective solution is not far a way.

Re:The old green question

[c1t1z3nk41n3]

Don't forget the CdS and CdTe. Where do those come from? Are they expensive or cheap to make (regarding both energy and cost)? Hopefully they are cheap enough that your analysis holds cause we've been told for too many years that solar power is going to be a viable option and I hope it's finally about to come true.

Re:The old green question

[ScrewMaster]

You know, in this case you may be right. Depends upon how tolerant the process is of power failures. Plants producing silicon wafers really need stable power, but this process might be different. If nothing else, lower power requirements might mean that solar could be effectively used to offset utility costs.

Re:The old green question

[Anonymous Coward]

I think its a misnomer...

As you don't seem to specify anything as being mislabeled, a substitute for 'misnomer' would probably be better. Perhaps 'misconception' is more what you're going for.

Re:The old green question

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm afraid your mistaken. There's more than just glass involved ($1.14/W is cited in the article as the manufacturing cost).

1. How much energy does it take to mine & transport the materials (cadmium, tellurium, & silicon, nitrogen gas).

2. How much energy does it take to heat the first chamber to 600 degrees C.

3. How much energy does it take to vaporize CdS (700 C).

4. How much energy does it take to cool it. How much energy does it take to transport the cells to the final destination.

Also, note that each step requires energy generation itself, therefore forming a recursive chain (i.e. it takes energy to produce energy). Since many of these don't terminate at renewable energy, at least for now, you'll have to factor in the contribution of the appropriate fossil fuel, nuclear, & natural gas energy production chains.

Hence the complexity of the question - it's probably unanswerable in an exact sense, but I'm sure an accurate & reasonable predication could probably be estimated.

Re:The old green question

[coldkryten]

I agree with you, but I think you're missing the point a bit. Cost is definitely an important factor for adoption of solar power, but you can't look at the energy life cycle purely as cost to produce/use vs. cost of energy created.

From your example lets say arbitrarily it takes 10 barrels of oil to create, transport and install a solar panel. What the real comparison needs to be is after the lifetime of the panel, how much energy, in barrels of oil, has it produced, and not the monetary value of that energy.

If the panel generates roughly the same amount of energy as 10 barrels of oil, we've wasted 10 barrels of oil, since they could have been put to use providing power to some end product and not the solar panels.

If the panel generated roughly twice the amount of energy it took to produce, we've broken even, and it didn't matter if we made the solar panel or not.

To provide a viable source of energy, the solar panel must generate significantly more than twice the energy it took to make. This way it can pay for itself (in energy,) pay for a replacement panel, and still provide useful net energy.

Re:The old green question

[the eric conspiracy]

It is VERY unlikely that electricity production costs in the US will increase that rapidy in the next few years since coal and nat gas are the primary fuels. Reserves for both are quite large.

The problem is oil its derivatives.

Re:The old green question

[hedwards]

That's to be expected, selling to commercial or retail buyers allows them to sell in much higher quantities, plus those buyers are more likely to need larger ones as well.

Ultimately, whomever they sell to, if you're living in an area where the panels are being installed you're still going to be getting benefits from the advance, even if it's a small reduction in the price of electricity and pollution.

There isn't likely any reason why somebody couldn't buy in bulk to provide to home owners, it looks to me far more like a disinterest in direct marketing than a wish to not allow small scale sales.

Re:The old green question

[fyngyrz]

Even at that, what TFS and TFA leave out is the selling price. They cost less to produce, but that doesn't mean the price to end users is a lot lower; there's plenty of motivation to eat that delta in profit, especially for a public company as in this case.

Re:The old green question

[Anonymous Coward]

If you're worrying about CdS and CdTe, you should take a look at something as simple as the white color used in everything from toothpaste to plastics: titanium dioxide

Re:The old green question

[hitmark]

power failures could probably be somewhat managed the same way that one manage power failure on computers.

Re:The old green question

[Lonewolf666]

What everyone seems to be waiting for is a cost-per-watt that is low enough so that ordinary people will decide to start buying them in large quantities without government subsidization.

And that is exactly what you need in countries that don't have a subsidization program. In the USA, I can see some of the more "green" states like California providing subsidies, but the current federal government seems more inclined to support the petroleum industry. How much change Obama would bring remains to be seen.

So a cost-per-watt that doesn't need subsidies will be an important step forward in making solar power widespread. A deteriorating distribution grid will also do its part, especially if the cost-per-watt-hour of batteries decreases. Here I guess that new Li-Ion chemistries will do their part when more manufacturers make them and competition kicks in.

Re:The old green question

[und0]

I've read somewhere that cadmium is a byproduct of zinc refining/smelting, tellurium instead seems pretty rare (according to Wikipedia)...

Re:The old green question

[Firethorn]

earmarked for commercial ventures only, no retail/residential sales. Pity. Hope that changes.

Is there a possibility of a distributorship? IE you don't buy small amounts of cells from the manufacturer, but solarhome.org or whoever buys a bunch of panels and puts together a kit using them?

Or maybe the construction means there's extra concerns regarding the installation of the panels, meaning you want extensive engineering, like what's uneconomical for home installs, but quite manageable for commercial ones.

Re:The old green question

[bcrowell]

What everyone seems to be waiting for is a cost-per-watt that is low enough so that ordinary people will decide to start buying them in large quantities without government subsidization. Suppose you're having a new house built: if you could install a ten or fifteen kilowatt solar plant and inverter for ten grand, you might figure it's worth it to borrow a little more money from the bank.

A couple of things to keep in mind here:

1. The cost per watt is already low enough that it makes sense for a lot of people, like me, to buy photovoltaics. It depends on what latitude you live at, how much sunny weather you get, which way your roof faces, how much shade there is on your roof, what the local price of electricity is, and what you expect the local price of electricity to be over the 25-year life of a photovoltaic system.
2. When you talk about government subsidies, you should do an apples-to-apples comparison with the alternative, which is typically electricity that comes from burning fossil fuels. Fossil fuels enjoy massive government subsidies here in the U.S. We've fought three extremely expensive wars recently in the middle east, and I don't think we would have been involved in any of those wars if there hadn't been oil there; my grandkids will be paying for my generation's deficit-funded oil wars. There's also a huge amount of environmental damage done by burning fossil fuels, and that damage affects both this generation and future generations. If people paid the real costs of that environmental damage up front, then gas would be a lot more expensive. In places like Europe that don't subsidize fossil fuels as much, gas costs about twice what it does in the U.S.

Re:The old green question

[tiananmen tank man]

It says it right in the first sentence, "at the fraction of the usual cost."

Re:The old green question

[PPH]

Well, if the cost of production includes the energy consumed in production, then at $1 per watt, the energy cost should be some fraction of that. Assume 0.05 per kWh and $1000 per kW, it will take 20,000 hours to pay back the energy expended. This is an absolute worst case, of course.

It all comes down to dollars, of course. If the power production justifies their cost and the energy used in their manufacturing is not subsidized, it becomes a reasonable investment.

Re:The old green question

[Khyber]

Well, if they were made by solar-powered plants, we wouldn't have to worry about that,would we?

Re:The old green question

[Devout_IPUite]

Sorry, I'm just so sick of this "liberal media" fantasy I feel obligated to object to it whenever it comes up.

Re:The old green question

[Artraze]

> Given that glass beer bottles cost a few cents each, a square meter of glass probably takes no more than a few dozen kWh....

This isn't beer bottle glass though. Beer bottles are generally blown out of recycled glass, while panel glass is produced by floating clear glass (generally not recycled) floated on molten zinc. Point being that the process is considerably more energy intensive than an equivalent number of beer bottles.

Now, they probably could get away with cheap recycled glass (i.e. brown, like beer bottles) and use a low power continuous vapor deposition system if/when these get mass produced, but in their current state I'd wouldn't be surprised if the break-even point is around 1.5 years.

Re:The old green question

[ScrewMaster]

No argument ... plus if you look at the whole picture of government subsidies, the tax breaks the oil outfits received should also be counted.

Re:The old green question

[Anonymous Coward]

You just gave me a genius business plan.
1) patent sunlight
2) charge anyone who wants to use sunlight
3) profit!

Re:The old green question

[vertinox]

It is VERY unlikely that electricity production costs in the US will increase that rapidy in the next few years since coal and nat gas are the primary fuels. Reserves for both are quite large.

If peak oil does happen, companies like Sasol will be hitting it big with Fischer-Tropsch coal to synthetic oil conversion which may actually increase the demand for coal.

As it stands, the recent trend in higher oil prices have also caused increases on coal as well as the decrease in coal price as oil declines in the past few weeks.

It might just be market speculation but oil and coal prices are tied together.

Re:The old green question

[gbjbaanb]

reserves mean nothing. The cost of digging it up mean a lot.

Take a look here for coal prices. I know that in the UK, we closed all the coal fields because they cost too much to dig the stuff out of the ground (compared to buying it from Australian fields). That's changed now and fields are being reopened.

from the Times in 2007
"Coal prices have soared recently, in common with other fuels. The McCloskey coal consultancy said that last month the price for world coal delivered to the Aire Valley in West Yorkshire - where the majority of Britain's coal-fired power stations are located - was $102 per tonne. This compares with $85 in January and $74 in July 2005."

Not to mention in the USA too:
The company's average selling price for coal in 2007 was $52.15 per ton, and in 2008 the average price is $62.25.

Energy prices are increasing across the range, oil has little to do with energy generation.

Re:The old green question

[Firethorn]

there's plenty of motivation to eat that delta in profit, especially for a public company as in this case.

And said profit can be used to expand the company- increase production, research increasing efficiency and decreasing costs, not to mention paying back the investors.

Making mad money can also encourage others to get into the industry.

After all, the market for $2/watt panels is likely 4X that of $4/watt panels. And orders of magnitude more if they can manage to make $1/watt panels - installed, since that's the price point for commercial power parity.

Though if you start digging into baseband power too much, the cost for commercial power will rise. Of course, peak power demands for most of the country happen during the day, so having a supplemental power source during the day helps.

Re:The old green question

[MJMullinII]

WTF? Why would the jews make sure nothing but WASP men got elected? Why would the jewish media favor the Republicans when they're traditionally more likely as a demographic to be Democrats? I think you really need to look at what you're saying, because your conspiracy theories really don't make sense.

Most conspiracy theories only make sense if you let someone else do your thinking for you.

The minute you DARE to think for yourself, the theory usually collapses.

Re:The old green question

[Lonewolf666]

You get the point, but there is still a logic flaw in your argumentation.

If the panel generates roughly the same amount of energy as 10 barrels of oil, we've broken even in terms of energy, since the panel has provided power to some end product that would have been provided by the oil otherwise. What was wasted is the effort to build the panel, since it would have been more convenient to use the oil directly.
Alternatively, each panel could produce the energy for making a new panel, so we could have successive generations of panels built with solar energy. Pointless so far but we'll get somewhere when get more energy out of each panel. See below...

If the panel generates significantly more energy than 10 barrels of oil, each panel can deliver the energy for making its successor panel plus some energy for powering end products. So you get a sustainable power source at the expense of a one time investment of 10 barrels of oil. An example:
If the panel generated roughly twice the amount of energy it took to produce, we've got the energy for making the second generation of panels plus the same amount of energy for our end product that the 10 barrels of oil would have provided. So we have more than broken even, because we got our energy back and the second generation of panels.

Back to real life numbers:
http://www.energybulletin.net/node/17219 has an article in which a number of estimates is cited from literature. Except for the most pessimistic high estimates, most numbers promise that a panel could deliver more than twice the energy for its manufacture within a lifetime of 20 years (my assumption).

Re:The old green question

[Anonymous Coward]

I am pretty sure oil prices are tied into most everything.... production, food costs, etc...

Re:The old green question

[falconwolf]

It's probably unanswerable, but I wonder how much energy it takes to make these cells, and how long it takes for them to offset that?

You mean the EROEI (Energy Returned on Energy Invested) or Embodied energy don't you? According to this thin film panels, which First Solar makes, has low embodied energy. This TFA says the embodied energy will be repaid in 3 years.

Falcon

Re:The old green question

[Bit_Squeezer]

If you use the initial production to produce the energy for making the next batch and so on. Set up shop in the dessert and you have the sand as well as the sunlight. Big solar powered robot that crawls across the desert gobbling sand and excreting cells... Cool stuff.

Re:The old green question

[Anonymous Coward]

There is CdS, CdTe inside, with needs to be recycled. As far as I know this is the reason they sell only to comercial buyers; to track the cells and have 100% returened.
Selling to private homes would make this tracking and recycling impossible.

Re:The old green question

[HeyLaughingBoy]

And that is exactly what you need in countries that don't have a subsidization program

What's with this "the Government will save us attitude?" No, subsidies aren't what we need; what we need is for capitalism to work. Someone will realize that the public (probably hobbyists and technical Greens first) want these in small quantities. That someone then buys them wholesale and makes a profit by selling small numbers of panels at higher cost to the general public.

I live on a farm and have a number of applications where I need occasional electricity, but it's uneconomical to run powerlines. Solar charged batteries works great for that.

Re:The old green question

[TubeSteak]

So a cost-per-watt that doesn't need subsidies will be an important step forward in making solar power widespread. A deteriorating distribution grid will also do its part, especially if the cost-per-watt-hour of batteries decreases.

This assumes that homeowners will be willing to pay the large up front costs for solar energy + batteries (+ the ongoing cost of whatever their electric company charges for a line with minimal usage).

Here I guess that new Li-Ion chemistries will do their part when more manufacturers make them and competition kicks in.

Any new battery tech will be a spin-off of hybrid/electric vehicles and the car companies will lock up the output for years. Assuming that they won't own the patent(s) for it outright.

Re:The old green question

[phoenixwade]

Also, note that each step requires energy generation itself, therefore forming a recursive chain (i.e. it takes energy to produce energy). Since many of these don't terminate at renewable energy, at least for now, you'll have to factor in the contribution of the appropriate fossil fuel, nuclear, & natural gas energy production chains.

I have always wondered that engineers design systems that expend energy to heat and then to cool things during the manufacturing process.

Why? I mean I was discussing water purification the other day with someone and they mentioned the restrictively high energy cost of using the distillation process as a means of purifying / desalinating water.

Why is that? I mean once you have high temp water and you need it to be low temp water, and you have more water that needs to be high temp water why not transfer the energy from the now distilled water to the needs to be distilled water. Energy requirements in that case are equal to energy lost to transfer efficiency constraints.

This is just one example, and one that is easy to demonstrate, but examples of these kind of energy losses exist everywhere, and I've never quite understood why. Why don't we capture all that heat energy and put it back into the system, with energy costs being what they are, it has to be cost effective to do this.

Re:The old green question

[Anonymous Coward]

Nobody cares if your puns were intended.

Re:The old green question

[daveime]

This is the same poo-pooing which has held us back from a viable alternative to fossil fuels for years.

Yes, the initial energy cost for the FIRST batch of cells will have a negative impact, but after that the system is energy efficient, as the SECOND batch of cells can be produced using solar energy created by the first batch. Even if it took 5 years to collect enough energy to create that second batch, it would still have no further cost !

We've been burning fossil fuels for 200 years, and no one gave a damn about carbon positive, carbon negative, carbon neutral until someone started suggesting alternatives that might start to affect the kickbacks certain groups have been receiving for years from the oil companies to promote their products at the cost of all alternatives.

And now anytime anyone comes up with an alternative energy source, the oil lobby groups start with the "energy cost" of alternative technologies ... when will you learn, that after the initial investment, the energy is free.

I don't think at this stage we can afford to pick and choose anymore, we have to innovate and move forward.

Re:The old green question

[falconwolf]

I think its a misnomer about how much any energy it takes to make something because the price of energy itself fluctuates with time.

Actually it quite appropriate to question the EROEI (Energy Returned on Energy Invested) or Embodied energy. If it takes 10 KWHs to create something that only produces 1 KWH in it lifetime that's bad. However if the same 10KWHs makes something that produces 100 KWH, heck just use 20 KWH, then it's a good investment.

The same thing can be seen when producing ethanol. For each barrel of ethanol used to make ethanol produced from corn, you get just about 2 barrels in return. However using sugarcane ethanol instead you get more than double the amount of ethanol.

Falcon

Re:The old green question

[Colin Smith]

Why don't we capture all that heat energy and put it back into the system

Nope. It costs less to burn more fuel than it does to improve the process...

HTH.
 

Re:The old green question

[Profane MuthaFucka]

At some point, you use solar panels to provide the energy to make other solar panels. You've still got shipping and mining costs that come from petroleum, but presumably in time these will be converted too.

Re:The old green question

[the eric conspiracy]

I am familiar with the SASOL process. It is one of many alternatives including oil sands etc. Canada has the largest world reserves of oil sands. Given current prices oil sand production is ramping up fairly rapidly in Canada, and now supplies a significant fraction of US demand. Canadian production of oil sands is actually exceeding the decline in production of oil in conventional Canadian reserves and is the reason Canada is now the leading petroleum exporter to the US. Canadian oil sands reserves exceed the total world reserves of conventional oil. Venezuela plus Canada equal 2x current world conventional oil reserves.

THERE IS NO REASON THE US NEEDS TO IMPORT OIL FROM OUTSIDE THE WESTERN HEMISPHERE GIVEN $100+ bbl pricing.

Also - the US is the Saudi Arabia of coal. It has the largest proven coal reserves in the world, enough for at least 300 years of consumption at current rates using conventional recovery methods, i.e. at current costs of recovery.

US coal reserves available using unconventional recovery methods (i.e. higher cost) are MUCH larger. potentially enough for at least 1000 years at current use rates. Maybe as much as 3000 years.

US nat gas reserves are not quite as large, however there are at least 20 years of reserves left using conventional recovery methods, and several decades more using higher cost recovery methods such as horizontal drilling. The CURRENT price of nat gas already makes horizontal drilling economical, and some companies are bringing production based on this technology online today. Price increases earlier this decade have already spurred increases in production and proven reserves of nat gas in the US when it was recently thought we would be having nat gas shortages before 2010.

http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/energy_in_brief/natural_gas_production.cfm

Now that doesn't mean I like the idea of unconstrained release of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. But it is important realize that it is not fossil fuels we are running out of. It is cheap oil we are running out of.

If we are going to develop alternative sources of energy the first thing we should be focusing on is understanding what forms those alternatives should take in order to maximize the economic gain from that investment.

My opinions on this are: (in order of priority)

1. Efficiency - especially in developing nations. China and India get very poor economic results per kw and their economies are starting to get very big. In 25 years I think China + India will equal the US. (I know others think it will happen faster, but I think long term estimates are more than a little over optimistic).

2. Conservation (imposed by tax policy if needed)

3. Replacements for gasoline. (NOT ethanol from corn that is STUPID!).

4. Non greenhouse gas producing fixed energy sources. Solar, tidal, geothermal, fusion, breeder whatever.

Note that I put solar as priority 4.

Re:The old green question

[infolib]

Why is that? I mean once you have high temp water and you need it to be low temp water, and you have more water that needs to be high temp water why not transfer the energy from the now distilled water to the needs to be distilled water. Energy requirements in that case are equal to energy lost to transfer efficiency constraints.

The principle is well known and called "regeneration" - you pass the incoming fluid through a heat exchanger with the outgoing fluid. For instance it's mentioned here in connection with the important Haber-Bosch ammonia process. It's also used by penguins to keep them from losing heat from the bloodstream through their feet! If the engineers are not doing it, they are really really poorly educated, or they have some decent reason. I suspect mainly the latter...

Re:The old green question

[Jamie Lokier]

You can recycle some of the heat, but you cannot recycle all of it. There are theoretical limits, depending on the substances, temperatures, rates of change, chemical changes, quality of thermal insulation, etc.

Ideal manufacturing processes will recycle as much as possible - but of course there are many reasons why a process deviates from physical ideals.

If you're interested, look up thermodynamics and heat cycles.

Re:The old green question

[Al Dimond]

It's not poo-pooing. If a cell takes more energy to create than the total expected output in life, then the first batch of cells can't supply the energy to create the second batch. Some analyses claim this true of small residential wind turbines, for example; it's also historically been true of solar cells. If that was the case with these cells they'd be basically useless. They'd be an energy sink, not an energy source.

For example. If the company wasn't selling anything, but just building panels for itself, say it takes 12J to build a panel that yields 10J over its entire life. For the first batch they burn 12J worth of coal for energy. For the second they use the first batch's energy plus 2J more worth of coal. And every subsequent batch requires 2J-worth more of coal to be burned. And this is a company that's producing nothing. If they're selling each time also to a consumer that will get 10J out of it, they'll need to build two panels per batch, requiring 24J of energy. Since they're only getting 10J from the ones they keep around, they'll need to burn 14J-worth of coal per year -- more than the 10J the consumer would have used if not for the cell. Better would be the company just burning coal to make its cells and then selling them -- only 12J of yearly coal burned. Better still would be the consumer just burning 10J-worth of coal.

That's not moving forward. If the company can sell the product for enough money to cover its expenses then it can survive doing this, even though this means the consumer is probably making a cost-ineffective decision when buying it (unless energy is a lot cheaper for the company than for the consumer, which, in different areas, is certainly possible). If the government subsidizes a company operating as an energy sink it may become a cost-effective option for consumers, and consumers with good financial sense and lots of space will buy tons of them, making it a gigantic energy sink, with much more coal burned than before.

Given that these cells are cheap, maybe they've found a way to make them an energy source instead of a sink. In that case, all that stuff you said works.

Re:The old green question

[gsasha]

Which is fine, because cars are much harder to wean off oil than residential homes.

Re:The old green question

[gormanw]

All production requires energy. The better question is whether there is a short enough pay-off period to make it a worthwhile purchase. It is nice to see that the manufacturing is improving and hopefully becoming cheaper. However, I still think nuclear is the way to go in the US. I read a great article about what the costs are titled "Nuclear, America Style" found at http://economicefficiency.blogspot.com/2008/07/nuclear-american-style.html It is a pretty balanced article explaining that in some cases, it is just too expensive.

Re:The old green question

[Bender_]

Making mad money can also encourage others to get into the industry.

The solar cell industry is already incredibly bloated and does not even obey real economic rules due to high subsidies.

Re:The old green question

[Anonymous Coward]

But the Sun doesn't shine 24 hours a day there and strangely, it's when the Sun goes down that we need electricity the most. Oops. I hope someone remembers to build some... batteries ... but they needn't be the lead kind, pumping water uphill is a good way to use energy that you don't need now (converting electrical energy into potential energy and back again.)

Oh, wait, all of those desert areas are also pretty flat. Oops.

Re:The old green question

[Lonewolf666]

I think subsidies are helpful to get the industry started early, before Peak Oil hits in earnest. Right now companies like First Solar can attract investor money because subsidies guarantee a market. Of course the same investments would happen once prices of conventional energy rise high enough, but I think without the subsidies serious development of better solar cells would have started a few years later. Which might really hurt if the more pessimist forecasts about Peak Oil are true.

Note that I'm not calling for permanent subsidies here:
I think that this change from oil/coal to renewables is inevitable and the subsidies are only necessary for a while. Prices for oil and coal are going up while the panels get cheaper. Eventually, and probably within a few years now, the best thin film solar technologies will be able to compete without subsidies.

Re:The old green question

[Anonymous Coward]

It's probably unanswerable, but I wonder how much energy it takes to make these cells, and how long it takes for them to offset that?

This may be obvious, but this is also a huge area of research at First Solar. I can't quote specific numbers, but depending on which experimental methods turn out to be feasible, it could range anywhere from really good to fantastic. Expect to hear plenty about that subject in 2-3 years.

Re:The old green question

[johno.ie]

The answer to what you did ask, at least for the glass + heating, is pretty easy to answer:
(148E6 / 85) * s = 480 hours. Less than a month.

Nice calculations, but there's a few more factors to consider. Every place on Earth gets an average of 12 hours sunlight a day. Even discounting the reduced light available when it's not high-noon that's still gonna take 40 days. It you're using non-tracking mountings and you take account of average cloud cover, the payback time would stretch out to somewhere closer to 6 months. Still not bad imfo.

johno

Re:The old green question

[Firethorn]

Well, yes, it's bloated due to the high subsidies. Doesn't mean that a solar company capable of making cheaper panels won't make more money.

Re:The old green question

[Firethorn]

Any good distillation plant will have heat exchangers to reduce the raw energy demand, still, economics and older plant designs can reduce energy efficiency.

It costs money to make this stuff efficient, a bigger heat exchange system costs more money.

with energy costs being what they are, it has to be cost effective to do this.

Non petrochemical energy costs are still pretty low, and it can cost millions to update a plant.

Re:The old green question

[Anonymous Coward]

If your thinking Obama is going to do anything to hurt big oil your going to be very surprised. Sure he may hurt some of the smaller American players, but never the big players in Muslim countries. Bush was in the pocket of big energy companies, Obama is in the pocket of big Oil companies.

Re:The old green question

[Ox0065]

Indeed the old green question re: solar.

If it costs less & is manufactured locally, then (unless it's receiving massive government subsidy) it almost certainly uses less power to produce (ie: has a lower embodied energy) than conventional solar cells made from high grade silicon.

Whether it stacks up for a particular use, as you say, requires some harder figures than "cheaper & bigger". It also doesn't mention efficiency.

Re:The old green question

[budgenator]

More likely these installations will use the good old Nickel-Iron battery

In many respects the Nickel/Iron battery was almost "too good." A battery that lasts for decades in many cases can outlast the equipment that it was originally designed to power. So from an economic standpoint lead acid, NiCd and other technologies have been deemed "good enough" and are the predominant technologies in use today even though they do not last as long as a Nickel/Iron counterpart. Nickel-Iron battery

These batteries do have limitations that make them less suitable for vehicular use such as

low specific energy, poor charge retention, and poor low-temperature performance.

since a residential or commercial solar pv installation is stationary, specific energy isn't a concern, the charge will only be needed to pull you through a night or a couple cloudy days and the batteries will be stored in a climate controlled area so they should be awesome for the task.

Re:The old green question

[arminw]

....In places like Europe that don't subsidize fossil fuels as much....

Most, if not all of the difference in price of gasoline in the US and Europe is due to much higher TAXES in Europe. In the US gas taxes are almost exclusively used for transportation related projects, mostly roads. This is NOT the case in other countries, where taxes on fuel are put in the general tax pot. Other vehicle taxes, such as registration and driver licenses are also part of the general government expenses there, while in the US these costs are also less and are mostly used for transportation related things, such as highway cops, and the DMV administration. Generally, the sales taxes on automobiles is the only major revenue source that is NOT tied to transportation.

Re:The old green question

[arrowrod]

It takes 400 trillion watts, and costs 500 million dollars, and takes 400,000,000 years.

Re:The old green question

[arrowrod]

Ordinary people like you? You don't have ten thousand dollars saved? 15 kw at 10 thousand dollars? 67 cents per watt? You think?

Re:The old green question

[arminw]

...it's when the Sun goes down that we need electricity the most....

Actually, in the sunniest and hottest places, it takes lots of power to run all those air conditioners. After the sun goes down the heat subsides and so does the load on the grid.

Re:The old green question

[arrowrod]

Applied Materials? This is about First Solar. Who cares that Applied Materials is making obsolete solar panels. First Solar has the secret sauce. Nobody else can innovate, because it is hard. And it will kill puppies.

Re:The old green question

[MarginalWatcher]

They use solar power to make the solar cells, man!

Re:The old green question

[swirth]

What everyone seems to be waiting for is a cost-per-watt that is low enough so that ordinary people will decide to start buying them in large quantities without government subsidization. Suppose you're having a new house built: if you could install a ten or fifteen kilowatt solar plant and inverter for ten grand, you might figure it's worth it to borrow a little more money from the bank.

A couple of things to keep in mind here:

1. The cost per watt is already low enough that it makes sense for a lot of people, like me, to buy photovoltaics. It depends on what latitude you live at, how much sunny weather you get, which way your roof faces, how much shade there is on your roof, what the local price of electricity is, and what you expect the local price of electricity to be over the 25-year life of a photovoltaic system.
2. When you talk about government subsidies, you should do an apples-to-apples comparison with the alternative, which is typically electricity that comes from burning fossil fuels. Fossil fuels enjoy massive government subsidies here in the U.S. We've fought three extremely expensive wars recently in the middle east, and I don't think we would have been involved in any of those wars if there hadn't been oil there; my grandkids will be paying for my generation's deficit-funded oil wars. There's also a huge amount of environmental damage done by burning fossil fuels, and that damage affects both this generation and future generations. If people paid the real costs of that environmental damage up front, then gas would be a lot more expensive. In places like Europe that don't subsidize fossil fuels as much, gas costs about twice what it does in the U.S.

1. The cost per watt is too high for the vast majority of people to buy photovoltaics. Most people don't live in those optimal places for solar power, their house wasn't designed for panels, and the local price of electricity is relatively low. Also, you can't factor in the "expected price" of electricity, unless you're a fortune teller.

2. Three wars? Are you including Afghanistan in the ME? Anyways, the US doesn't use oil to generate electricity in any significant amount. The largest percentage comes from coal... a domestic source. So even if the persian gulf war and the iraq war were about protecting oil, it would be a subsidy to our fossil fuel based transportation sector.

I agree with you about the environmental impacts, but I think that it is difficult to calculate the 'real costs' of using fossil fuels. How much should someone have to pay per gallon of gas in an environmental tax? How do you calculate that value?

Re:The old green question

[Locutus]

the problem is that they are only getting about 10% conversion efficiency out of their panels. What this means is that you'll need more square footage of panels than say 15% efficient panels. That means more roof space, more racks/rails, and more panels with all their frames and wiring.

they say a theoretical 20% efficiency is obtainable but when you have subsidized orders out to 2012, it will only the the competition that'll force them to try harder to get the efficiencies up. Right now, they are making money and looking to expand manufacturing.

LoB

Re:The old green question

[Devout_IPUite]

You might want to look into the christian fundamentalist interest in making sure the jews inherit Israel. You might also want to investigate who is the 'commander in chief' who ran an administration that actually sold the war on Iraq to the American people. You might also want to investigate what being a minority entails. You might also consider white supremacism is long overrated.

Seriously, you're making conservatives look really bad. I'm a liberal and you're making me feel bad for them. And drop the anonymous posting, or are you afraid the jews will find out who you are and make you sit on the back of a bus?

Re:The old green question

[nobodyman]

it looks to me far more like a disinterest in direct

Goddamn I hate when people use that word incorrectly. That's not what disinterested means.

Re:The old green question

[Dare nMc]

But to know if this production is (part of) a solution to the energy crisis, and not just another battery to store and transport oil energy, we need to know true energy out - energy in.

Oil is fairly easy to store. So if were confident Oil will go up quickly, then best for society to just keep the oil, it is much more liquid (no pun.) than a slow and unchangeable drizzle of energy from the panel.
I do agree pure energy cost to produce isn't a end all # for individual calculation of viability. Especially since we don't have any idea of future deliver costs, and supply. Having our own control may be worth it.

Re:The old green question

[Kristoph]

Answers.com says ...

Lack of interest; indifference.

... which is how I read the posters intent.

]{

Re:The old green question

[marafa]

good question and to continue that line of thought: do these solar cell manufacturing companies use their own products to create their own energy?

Re:The old green question

[Anonymous Coward]

It depends on how much they cost. The company has to charge enough to make a profit and pay their energy/material bills. So if the Panels produce enought electricity to pay for themselves they should be net energy positive.

Re:The old green question

[TapeCutter]

"they say a theoretical 20% efficiency is obtainable"

We already have cells pushing 40% but they are expensive, dollars per watt over the lifetime of the installation is how you should figure out if a particular installation is financially viable.

Re:The old green question

[rhsanborn]

In another line of reasoning, if there weren't subsidies on oil and oil companies then oil would have reflected the cost earlier and investors would have seen the market for solar cells, electric cars, etc.

Government subsidization is indeed good for initiating interest in otherwise daunting industries, but continued subsidies discourage other similar industries from starting because government involvement creates uncertain and less predictable markets.

Solar is a perfect example, with the government backing energy companies (oil and coal), it was a significantly higher risk to invest in alternative energy because the government was providing preference for a competing sector of the industry.

Re:The old green question

[indifferent children]

Is the solar cell industry more "bloated" than the oil industry? The US government gives somewhere between $15B and $35B in subsidies to the oil industry. That doesn't include indirect benefits like our half-trillion-dollar-per-year military guaranteeing shipping, keeping some countries oil off the market for years, and then paving the way for American oil companies to break into distorted markets. Is it any wonder that solar "can't compete" with fossil fuels?

Re:The old green question

[Locutus]

First off, these are not of the same techniques or cost of those 40% efficient cells you mention so your talking apples and oranges here. Secondly, are you saying it does not matter how many panels or their size is a cost consideration?

If anything, the article shows that price/watt is not the ONLY thing to be considered in the widescale adaption of solar PV technology.

LoB

Re:The old green question

[sribe]

I think its a misnomer about how much any energy it takes to make something...

No, it's very relevant. For instance if something uses more energy over its useful lifespan than it generates, then it's a net loss that ends up requiring more use of fossil fuels. Your impulse may be to scoff at such an idea as absurd, but in fact early generations of wind turbines had exactly this problem: analyzed over the whole life cycle, they were net energy consumers not producers. (During the past decade or so great advances were made both in efficiency and durability of wind turbines. This is no longer the case at all, and wind turbines are now big producers over their life spans.)

So we all hear about how green solar is. And it sure looks clean sitting there on your house: no smoke, no visible waste at all, nothing, just clean pure power. However, how much energy did it take to make those panels? If you think about it for a moment, it's obvious that the gross output is not really clean in the sense of displacing dirtier methods. What's green is the gross output less the input required to manufacture the solar cells. Now consider 2 facts: 1) for most people, solar power only starts to have a reasonable payback time when government pays 2/3 the cost through subsidies; 2) the largest single cost in the manufacture of those cells is the energy required to manufacture them. Hmm. Does lead to some suspicions about how much burning of fossil fuels is displaced by a solar panel on your roof. (I'm not trying to claim it's negative, just pointing out that the environmental advantages of current-generation solar panels is exaggerated.)

Personally, I think spending all this money, in other words diverting money from the bulk of rate payers & tax payers to a lucky few who can swing the cost of home solar, was a bad idea. Better to wait a bit until some of these "real soon now" breakthrough solar technologies ship in large quantity. Not that I believe any single company's claims, just that there are enough companies now moving into the manufacturing phase that surely at least one will actually succeed. (Meaning they'll come close to their goals for cost of the process and efficiency and longevity of the product.) As it is, we have government subsidizing inefficient products while startup companies try hard to develop efficient products--really not the best public policy.

Re:The old green question

[drinkypoo]

Nickel is bad, mmkay? The environmental impact section of your beloved wikipedia article is pure trash, because it does not mention the environmental impact of nickel refining. Nickel is a probable carcinogen and a great deal of it is released environmentally during its production. Flywheels are probably the best means of energy storage. And I think you can do quite well for vehicles running on algae-derived lipids and using catalysts... potentially carbon-neutral with the right vehicle design, and so on. Ultimately we need to do a lot less consumption, but tripling the average fuel mileage in twenty years is not an unreasonable or unreachable goal.

Re:The old green question

[budgenator]

I suspect that after Suzie Homemaker reads about a flywheel explosion in the "World News Weekly" between the batboy and bigfoot stories, flywheels will be a pretty hard sell! Beside if Nickel was that bad, Wouldn't we have all died from handling money by now?

Re:The old green question

[Bender_]

No, in fact it is not more bloated than the semiconductor industry to which the solar cell industry is inherently coupled. Just take a glimpse of what is happening in that sector to understand where the solar cell industry is heading in 5-10 years.

Re:The old green question

[Anonymous Coward]

No more and most likely a lot less then fossil fuel generation when all the costs (such as the health costs from the mercury produced by burning coal) and all the government subsidies for both fossil and renewables are backed out.

The good things is as people continue to debate the role of solar on such myopic issues as this, they continue to ignore rising fossil fuel prices and a vision of a "globally warmed world" such as we saw this week in China.

Re:The old green question

[Areyoukiddingme]

Probably not. Nickels are 75% copper.

As is always the case when somebody says, "X is a carcinogen!" you have to ask "under what conditions?" When it's being refined, it's in a form that can enter the body and become carcinogenic. Once refinement is complete and it's a metal, it's not. In certain forms, it's an essential trace mineral in human enzymes. You can't live without ingesting some every year. As with most elements, the human body needs a little and not a lot. (Barring elements like carbon and hydrogen and oxygen, which we need a lot of, and uranium and thorium, which we don't need any of...)

Re:The old green question

[gebbeth]

After all, the market for $2/watt panels is likely 4X that of $4/watt panels. And orders of magnitude more if they can manage to make $1/watt panels - installed, since that's the price point for commercial power parity.

No one ever seems to consider the payback time with the cost indexed against inflation. With our real inflation at or above 10% (you don't really believe the Consumer Price Index that leaves out the cost of energy, food and housing do you?) The payback time could be as quick as 10 years with current prices. Add in state/federal incentives and it could be as low as 5.

Re:The old green question

[Firethorn]

At least in my area, inflation has been pretty much non-existent in the electricity market, which would hurt electricity; as the money that would have gone towards solar panels can instead be more profitably spent elsewhere to help with costs that are rising above the average inflation rate. Getting a new, more fuel efficient vehicle, for example.

Re:The old green question

[MrResistor]

Why aren't white people who leave their countries to emigrate, moving to shitholes like Africa or India?

Because they are shitholes. Seriously, I know plenty of white people who have emigrated to non-white places that are not shitholes, like Taiwan, Hong Kong, South Korea, Japan...

As for myself, I am as white as they come, yet I've found that I prefer the company of Asians (and not just the women) over that of my own ethnic group, the "typical white American".

Let The Sunshine In!

[Illbay]

And pull Algore's chestnuts out of the fire.

Great big solar cells?

[BadAnalogyGuy]

I want small, unnoticeable solar cells that generate the same amount of energy. Just a few weeks ago there was a story about solar cells that were postage stamp sized and used some fancy technique to reflect incoming light to the outer rim of the cell to increase efficiency or something.

Now we are told that larger panels are better? Calgon, take me away!

Re:Great big solar cells?

[UnknowingFool]

The story doesn't say larger is better per se. The story says that these cells are cheaper because they can be manufactured on a different scale. The most efficient solar cells are unfortunately only in labs at the moment and may not make it to consumers because of cost. Such it is with a lot of technology. The efficiency/cost ratio is important for more widespread adoption of solar technology.

Re:Great big solar cells?

[maxume]

So what you are saying is that you want solar panels that are powered by the dark?

Re:Great big solar cells?

[S-100]

Efficiency only matters when comparing similar substrates. This one uses glass rather than silicon, so the cost savings per watt trump watts/cm2 efficiency. For large scale implementation, the best solution would be a solar cell that is manufactured on site by the acre. There's plenty of space for them, so the efficiency per unit area is not very important. Using a cheap substrate and thin layers of the rare earth compounds is a much better formula.

Re:Great big solar cells?

[DKelley]

Right.... And vast expanses of tar and sand (aka roofing shingles) is soooo much more attractive.

YASCS

[ScrewMaster]

Yet Another Solar Cell Story.

Re:YASCS

[jmorris42]

> Yet Another Solar Cell Story.

Yup, it has replaced fusion as the tech that is always about twenty years away from being the Next Big Thing.

These days I doubt fusion would be greeted as a good thing unless somebody went straight to Mr. Fusion and there would still be die hard Greens trying to regulate or outlaw it just because of fear.

Of course what wouldn't be stated would be exactly what the fear was, they fear us finding a sustainable energy source they can't control to reduce total energy use by humans. Because in the end they will object to ANY energy source that doesn't result in humans living a reduced energy lifestyle because they have a religious belief that humans ARE the problem. Just wait, there have already been attempts to regulate large solar installations in the desert on environmental grounds, when large installations actually get ready for construction the legal groundwork to delay and control will be firmly in place.

Re:YASCS

[ScrewMaster]

Given how much the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has done to promote and encourage the use of atomic power, I'd say you're probably right.

Get used to seeing them.

[EWAdams]

I'm sure about 1890 people were saying, "Yet another petroleum story." If you want to keep your head in the sand, what are you doing on Slashdot?

Re:Get used to seeing them.

[ScrewMaster]

Hardly. But cheap solar power is like artificial intelligence ... we've been told for the past forty or fifty years that it's just around the corner. If it turns out that this outfit really has something (and if they don't manage to get bought out and squelched) that's wonderful so far as I'm concerned. Just don't expect me to hold my breath waiting for it.

Re:Get used to seeing them.

[poetmatt]

both have been increasing in efficiency,use,everything over the years. Nothing is "OMFG groundbreaking", but both AI and solar power will at some point be prominent technologies, and likely in our lifetime.

Re:Get used to seeing them.

[ScrewMaster]

That's correct. My original point is that people have a habit of promising breakthroughs "now", when they're decades away from commercializing their ideas. In reality it often takes the patient accumulation of knowledge over many years to achieve anything significant.

Re:Get used to seeing them.

[nospam007]

>...If you want to keep your head in the sand, what are you doing on Slashdot?

Exactly! We need the sand for the glass to make solar panels.

Re:Get used to seeing them.

[budgenator]

yes and they were gleeful at the prospect of having a vehicle that only consumed energy while they were in operation unlike draft animals and not having to employ brigades of street sweepers to keep the horse manure under control

their tech

[opencity]

Cadmium Telluride is also a direct bandgap semiconductor which yields more watts per kg than the indirect bandgap semiconductor materials. Solar cells become less efficient at converting solar energy into electricity as their temperatures increase but Cadmium Telluride is less susceptible to cell temperature increases than traditional semiconductors generating relatively more electricity under high ambient temperatures. It's also more efficent at converting low and diffuse light to electricity more efficiently than conventional cells under cloudy weather and dawn and dusk conditions.

They also have a recycling plan in place for the lifetime of the product - somewhat at odds with the traditional landfill methods of yore. But, no retail. They don't sell to individuals and only deal with utility companies. Finance trivia: Their stock has grown spectacularly since the IPO and there is a large investment from the Walton family (insert TV joke here)

Re:their tech

[ScrewMaster]

Their stock has grown spectacularly since the IPO and there is a large investment from the Walton family (insert TV joke here)

G'night, John-boy.

Re:their tech

[drgould]

But, no retail. They don't sell to individuals and only deal with utility companies.

Sucks to be an individual, but smart for a new company with a new manufacturing process.

No worrying about individual packaging for individual sales. No free support for thousands of homeowners who know nothing about solar power or home wiring trying to install a new product.

Just selling truck loads of product to a few dozen customers who have their own experienced engineers and are willing to pay for support if they need it.

Re:their tech

[Redlemons]

They don't sell to individuals and only deal with utility companies

This is true, but I don't think it works that way in practice. They have partnerships with developers whom individuals can source First Solar products though.

Re:their tech

[Kaenneth]

Walton as in Wal*Mart, yes?

How many square meters of the earth surface is roofs over Wal*Marts?

Re:their tech

[arrowrod]

Yes it is tough to be stupid. Let's get this straight, they only sell to... So I can't create a utility company? Anybody want to be in my utility company? I know this is hard, so just quit.

Re:their tech

[drgould]

*sigh*

I didn't read anywhere that they would never, ever sell to individuals.

They're a start-up. Their resources are limited. To conserve their resources they decided initially just to sell to utilities.

Nowhere did I read that, a few years from now when they're larger and have more resources, they won't decide to start selling to individuals, or sell to a distributor that will sell to individuals.

Obama's "Manhattan Project" On Alternative Energy

[curmudgeon99]

We should not spend another penny aiding or abetting the Petroleum industry. Every penny of public-funded research should go towards research of alternatives to oil and gasoline.

• Electromagnetic energy taken from the ionosphere/
• Seawater desalination by solar-cell-powered electrolosis, generating hydrogen.
• Vast swaths of the Western US need to get covered with wind farms.

Oil is yesterday. McCain is so old school he can only imagine increasing the supply of oil. What he and the GOP don't like is the obvious need to encourage commuting by bicycle and public transit--as we have here in NYC--so that people like me can gleefully sell their cars and live without one. This style of low-impact life, where you're not always dragging around a big metal car with you, does not offer as many profit opportunities. Corporations don't like a low-stuff life because they can't take as much of our money away, then.

Re:Obama's "Manhattan Project" On Alternative Ener

[ScrewMaster]

Hey. I like my stuff.

Article in two sentances:

[gregbot9000]

$3-$4 per watt. Slightly better than 10 percent efficiency. There, I just saved you two boob-less hours.

Re:Article in two sentances:

[xaxa]

$3-$4 per watt. Slightly better than 10 percent efficiency. There, I just saved you two boob-less hours.

FTA:

Todayâ(TM)s modules deliver up to 75 W at a conversion efficiency of 10.6 percent and have a manufacturing cost of $1.14/W. This is way below the selling price of $2.45/W, so the company enjoys a healthy profit margin. However, to compete against fossil-fuel sources on the free market and pick up a tidy profit, the company will have to get manufacturing costs down to Âbetween $0.65/W and $0.70/W. To do so, it has told investors that it needs to reduce manufacturing costs and increase conversion efficiency to 12 percent. Getting there is entirely feasible, as CdTe cells have a theoretical maximum of well over 20 percent; the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, in Golden, Colo., has already produced cells with 16.5 percent efficiency.

Re:Article in two sentances:

[D. Taylor]

Maybe you should have spent two hours reading the article - you might summarize it correctly then.

The article states that current silicon photocells sell for around $3-$4 per watt.

The new CdS/CdTe cells cost $1.14/W to produce and sell for $2.45/W.

To reach "grid parity" they need to reduce the manufacturing costs to $0.60-$0.75/W and increase efficiency from "over 10 percent" to over 12 percent. The maximum theoretical efficiency for CdTe cells is over 20% and cells with an efficiency of 16.5% have already been made.

Re:Article in two sentances:

[gregbot9000]

Honestly thats their fault. It's just poor journalism to make an article with that much cruft. yes I just skimmed it, because I have to go to work and can't read it. If I want literary journalism I'll read HST about drugs, not IEEE about photovoltaics.

Re:Article in two sentances:

[ScrewMaster]

Define "grid parity".

Re:Article in two sentances:

[Anonymous Coward]

If you're going to write "fag," why not also write "You"? Let the world know you're a bitch, be proud of it!

Re:Article in two sentances:

[Soul-Burn666]

FTFA:
If you just want to power a billion-dollar space probe, almost any price per watt is acceptable. If you are selling to lonely farmhouses, you just have to charge less than the cost of running a power line to the boondocks. In some parts of the world, competing with grid electricity itself may be an easy game during peak consumption hours. But if you want the off-peak market, you'll have to price your cells at about US $1 per watt. That price is called grid parity, and it's the holy grail of the photovoltaic industry.

Re:Article in two sentances:

[Anonymous Coward]

Too bad 'grid parity' doesnt include the cleanup and environmental costs of fossil fuel.

Re:Obama's "Manhattan Project" On Alternative Ener

[Lije Baley]

Thanks for yet another dose of eastern urban bigotry. -1 Redundant.

Re:Obama's "Manhattan Project" On Alternative Ener

[curmudgeon99]

You have the right to your stuff--if you're willing to pay out the ass for it. That's what it's coming to, you know. NYC nearly implemented congestion pricing like London already has. That means you would have had to pay $11.00 just to enter Lower Manhattan. Owning a car is not going to get cheaper. Let the market convince you that you don't need your stuff. That's the American way.

Their secret: unrevealed

[StrawberryFrog]

Their secret: increasing the light-catching area 'from postage-stamp to traffic-sign dimensions,' reducing the manufacturing time to 1/10th of the competition's

So, what's the secret to their secret?

Re:Their secret: unrevealed

[rah1420]

So, what's the secret to their secret?

FTFA: They ain't sayin'. They ain't talkin' to reporters. At all.

Re:Their secret: unrevealed

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a secret.

Re:Their secret: unrevealed

[Magada]

Easy. They get horrible power density (few watts per square meter). However, since they stumbled upon a process that doesn't use the cumbersome and highly expensive technology inherited by solar from the chip fabbing industry, their cost per square meter is low enough that they can get away with that. Who'd 'a' thunk it?

Where did the numbers go?

[teumesmo]

The numbers for solar cells are, if I remember correctly, around 1000watts per mÂ(meters squared). Now what matters is efficiency, (in relation of those 1000 watts per m of possible production), durability, production decay(along the years of the cell's life), and price. The process sounds simple enough, glass plates are cheap, durable, environment friendly enough, but the relevant is unfortunately information is missing...

Environmental impact of cadmium?

[BlueParrot]

So how much cadmium is needed, and how much leaks during the manufacturing process? Given that the opposition to nuclear power worries about toxic materials that decay with time, one would imagine there would be some concern about carcinogens that remain a danger forever, and cannot be destroyed.

Re:Environmental impact of cadmium?

[the eric conspiracy]

Cadmium is nasty stuff. The primary human exposure to cadmium is cigarette smoke. Not so much from industrial uses such as batteries, pigments etc.

There is some history of cadmium in run off water from mines causing cadmium poisoning in Japan. Cadmium poisoning is known and ouch-ouch disease. It is so painful that people don't die from it, they commit suicide first.

Re:Environmental impact of cadmium?

[ScrewMaster]

Cadmium is also something that you want to keep out of landfills. I was reading that the millions of used Nickel-Cadmium batteries currently residing in the nation's garbage dumps are a potential problem for groundwater reserves.

Re:Environmental impact of cadmium?

[Anonymous Coward]

From what I know there are studies showing that CdTe is very stable, meaning that there is no real danger from the cell itself or from any CdTe leaks. Concerning leaked Cadmium making the CdTe, I have no idea.

Re:Environmental impact of cadmium?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, if this 'cadmium' "can't be destroyed", why don't we just stop production?

Seriously, the EPA really needs to get on top of this... ;)

Re:Environmental impact of cadmium?

[quercus.aeternam]

Well, if this 'cadmium' "can't be destroyed", why don't we just stop production?

I would be very interested in hearing about anyone's efforts to stop the production of cadmium.

Re:Environmental impact of cadmium?

[Headw1nd]

Oh I so wish I had a mod point.

Re:Environmental impact of cadmium?

[Anonymous Coward]

What are you talking about? Everybody loves Cadmium! How do they get the sweet creamy filling inside those little chocolate eggs? Dunno, but I am sure of one thing: the atomic weight of Cadmium is delicious!

Re:Obama's "Manhattan Project" On Alternative Ener

[strabes]

First of all, thirteen cents of every dollar you spend on gasoline goes directly to the Federal Government. That is hardly aiding the petroleum industry.

Second, getting the Federal Government involved in encouraging commuting and public transportation? The results might be as good as our public education system! The real question is why the Federal Government has prohibited offshore drilling for so long when any such law is clearly unconstitutional via the 10th Amendment. It's not the Federal Government's job (assuming you adhere to the Constitution, of course) to use force to make people use a certain kind of energy.

Re:The old black question

[dubbayu_d_40]

What's a better use of oil, making persistent sources of energy, or driving to 7-11 for nachos?

Re:Obama's "Manhattan Project" On Alternative Ener

[Anspen]

Maybe because the drilling is largely in the economic exclusion zone, which is granted to the US as a whole not to individual states? Also oil spills would likely affect more than one state, making it a federal issue.

Arizona!

[copponex]

Well, a smart idea would be to move all of our high tech manufacturing to the hottest deserts we have. You can build earth sheltered factories to save on A/C, cover the roof and surrounding area with solar panels for virtually unlimited electrical supply, bury some flywheel energy storage to keep necessities going at night. If solar panels turn out to be unsustainable, simpler thermal power plants could be used.

You have an endless supply of sand for glass and silicon. You make non-perishable goods that can be moved out slowly and efficiently (solar/thermal powered electric rail or whatever). To make it really sustainable you could use the same transportation to import recycled or recyclable plastics for the rest.

Our current answer is using fuel that's guaranteed to run out. We should shop direct for our energy.

Re:Arizona!

[Anonymous Coward]

Although I agree with you for the most part, it seems inefficient to cover a building, and then have to spend energy on lighting the place again. Are there ways to get around this problem?

Re:Arizona!

[Plaid Phantom]

Well, I would assume at least *some* light makes it completely through the panel. If you don't add the back cover you would have a sort of skylight.

Re:Arizona!

[ardle]

Optical fibre?

Re:Arizona!

[Anonymous Coward]

And the water comes from where?

There's a reason I sold my house in Tucson about a decade ago, and it's the fact that southern Arizona in general cannot manage its goddamned water supply.

Yes, let's grow grass in the desert! Yippee!

Re:Arizona!

[TubeSteak]

Well, a smart idea would be to move all of our high tech manufacturing to the hottest deserts we have. You can build earth sheltered factories to save on A/C, cover the roof and surrounding area with solar panels for virtually unlimited electrical supply, bury some flywheel energy storage to keep necessities going at night. If solar panels turn out to be unsustainable, simpler thermal power plants could be used.

You're forgetting one thing: water

Hi-tech industry is insanely thirsty and water is the one thing you will not be finding in the dessert.

Re:Arizona!

[strelitsa]

What they really need is a droid that understands the binary language of moisture vaporators.

Re:Arizona!

[budgenator]

well obviously we would then need to build some nuke plants to energize the reverse osmosis plants to destinate the sea-water, and build some wind generator to power the pumping stations to get the water to the solar enegy farms in the desert!

Re:Arizona!

[arrowrod]

Great business plan. Pitch your idea to all of the venture capitalists in Silicon Valley. They will probably make you CEO of a trillion dollar venture. You might use Hitler's underground bunkers to save on digging costs.

Re:Arizona!

[Anonymous Coward]

you must be from east of the Mississippi, why else would you destroy the desert to make energy.

Solar is an energy source, not a power source. The factory's power consumption per square foot will outstrip what your plant will demand.

Re:Obama's "Manhattan Project" On Alternative Ener

[jorghis]

Yeah! Because Obama is against increasing the supply of oil and allowing oil companies to drill offshore! Oh wait, that was last month....

This whole "McCain is in the pocket of big oil" stuff is kind of silly. Other than tax issues can you name a single oil related issue where Obama and McCain oppose each other?

They both support things like carbon credits and funding for alternative energy stuff. (which the oil companies hate, try explaining how McCain can support carbon credits and be in the pocket of the oil companies at the same time) They both support things like offshore drilling. All the rest of it is just political posturing.

Democrats have just realized that people dont like oil companies and so claiming that every candidate they run against is in the pocket of oil companies is just one of those attacks they always make. Kind of like how republicans always claim democrats are elitist new england snobs. Its silly and if you look at the facts it usually doesnt have much basis in reality but these are the kinds of attacks that energize their base and work well in politics.

Re:Obama's "Manhattan Project" On Alternative Ener

[twiddlingbits]

And all that is going to happen WHEN? As others have pointed out a lot of these technologies haave been "any day now" for 20 years. Wind is certainly ready now but you know the wind doesn't blow all the time (and it has to be fairly strong to move the blades) so that power source is not going to consistent and high levels. We can have oil from additional offshore drilling in a couple years, maybe less (California for instance..they know it's there as it was explored in the 1970's). And don't forget China is drilling in Cuba which is only 90 miles offshore! Until we get these pie-in-the-sky alternative technologies going full steam we need to find a way to get more oil & natural gas.(How do you think they fire those furnances to make glass for those solar panels?) I've never seen McCain to be against alternative ideas, just a realist who knows it takes time to get this stuff to market, and in the meantime we need to ensure our supply is strong of oil. What we NEED is more nuclear power but interestingly enough thats not an option according to Mr O. He admires the European model of Government so much why doesn't he see they were wise in using nuclear power? As for commuting by bike or rail or subway, that option doesn't exist for many cities in the USA. You obviously have never been to places like Dallas, Denver or Atlanta where mass transit is only somewhat available. And what about those people who don't live in the city? Are they supposed to ride a bike 30 miles to the big city to work? If you look a bit you"ll find carpools in many places where there is a large suburban workforce so conservation is occuring as is practical. It has nothing to do with corporations or anything like that. It's just the way things are. So quit your NYC psychobabble Obama spin, get outside the city and look at how the REAL world works and has to live.

Re:Obama's "Manhattan Project" On Alternative Ener

[curmudgeon99]

WE just had a spill caused by human stupidity and penny pinching [oil tanker in the Mississippi that leaked all that heavy oil after a barge hit it] and so I have no faith in the Prince-William-Sound fouling oil industry to not have major accidents and ruin our common coastlines and all the wildlife and environments that live there. You're missing the point entirely. Oil is not a long-term solution. Why waste another dime on trying to extend the supply. We have clearly had something change in our weather patterns. We know oil is a fossil fuel that is destined to run out. Look at them flailing in China to clean up their air in time for the Olympics. Oil is just bad all around. So, according to your view, it is the best choice to direct our attention towards squeezing out those last few drops of oil, which--according to the 80-20 rule--will be the hardest, most expensive and lease safe of all? You're short sighted. To use an analogy that would be understood by all the slashdotters, you're the guy whose advocating that we rebuild our company's systems in COBOL rather than Java/.NET/ or whatever newer. Coal and oil do not need time or attention wasted on them. They are dirty, and only enrich a few people at the top of coal companies. We need diverse and varied sources of energy that are renewable. We need to try several things and let the marketplace choose which ones are the best. The real problem is that the oil industry is allowed to dump a byproduct of their commodity into the atmosphere and the waterways without accounting for that damage. If you accounted for the damage oil is doing to our environment, and made oil companies sell their product while paying for that damage, we would all see that the current petroleum-oriented economy is terrible. Anybody who roots for more oil drilling is just some deluded troglodyte who really doesn't care what happens to this world as long as they can get rich in it, and "have theirs". Well, we've had enough of people who are willing to get theirs even if it means they have to go out late Saturday nights and tip over a 50-gallon-drum of toxic waste into the local creek. If it saves them some money, they're all for it. We've had enough of that type of bastard.

Freekin lotta good it will do

[JohnnyGTO]

your average home owner wanting to get off the grid, they don't seem to have a way of selling them for residential. Wouldn't that be he best way, 10's of millions of little energy plants taking care of their own needs, splitting H2O with MIT's new catalyst and selling super cheap left over power back to the non solar users?

Re:Freekin lotta good it will do

[maxume]

The installation costs are lower for commercial installations, as are the distribution costs (ship your next X days production to one spot...).

Also, if you had to choose between a few customers that come to you and many customers that you need to go to (i.e., home installations are going to need additional layers of distributors and installers and so forth), which would you pick?

Re:Freekin lotta good it will do

[JohnnyGTO]

I know I was just being facetious, still living in the Arizona and driving by their building every so often I long for cheap overlord-free solar power!

Re:Obama's "Manhattan Project" On Alternative Ener

[SirLurksAlot]

I agree, we should absolutely be pursuing alternative energy sources such as the ones you mentioned. If we are ever going to make headway in clean, affordable energy we need to start yesterday.

What he and the GOP don't like is the obvious need to encourage commuting by bicycle and public transit--as we have here in NYC--so that people like me can gleefully sell their cars and live without one.

I'm not defending McCain's POV in any way here, but I the issue is much more complicated than you make it sound. NYC already has a well established public transit system, and (as far as I know) much of the population is centrally located, making the public transit system's job much easier. This is not the case in many other cities in the country. Many metro areas in the midwest are quite spread out and rely heavily on personal transport to get people from point A to point B. I live in Columbus myself, and while I would love to see something along the lines of a light rail system I can see a number of hurdles as well. How will it be paid for? Where will it run and how often will it make stops? Columbus is also rather small as cities come, and I only imagine that these problems will increase in larger cities (think Houston, or St. Louis). As for you suggestion that more people commute by bicycle, I'm sorry but that is simply absurd in cities which are geographically spread out. I already commute 25 minutes to work by car, it would be impossible by bike (and I'm sure as hell not going to move closer to work and nearly double my rent in the process).

The other issue you seem to be ignoring is that people like their freedom, and most of them like their "stuff" as well. I personally enjoy having my own car which allows me (and my family) to go where I need to when I need, as well as to carry whatever necessities (such as groceries) with me. The idea of being able to drive anywhere you want, whenever you want has been so ingrained into people's minds that even if public transit were to suddenly be given a green light all over the country most people still would not use it. The bottom line is cars are here to stay, the only thing that will change is what they use for fuel.

Re:Obama's "Manhattan Project" On Alternative Ener

[curmudgeon99]

Sorry to disappoint you. I'm about as national as you can get: Born and raised in Nebraska, lived in Iowa, Arizona, Texas, Ohio and Utah before I ever stepped foot, recently, in New York. Funny how facile comments like the one you just made can be shown to be so ludicrous.

Reliability?

[Ankh]

Currently you can expect a home solar panel installation to pay for itself within 7 years (here in southern Ontario). If you combine it with wind turbines you can get your money back sooner, and if you spend the extra to be able to sell electricity back to the grid, you can get a payback much sooner because Ontario hydro (the power company here) pays you more than it would charge for the electricity (no distribution fee).

Ideally you want the installation to last for 10 years or more without significant failures, though.

Often "thinner and cheaper" translates to "more easily broken" and "less reliable" - for example, when the units flex in high winds. So my main worry would be about the expected (and achievable) lifetime of the units. Maybe if they gave a five or ten year warranty I'd be OK with it.

Re:Reliability?

[Anonymous Coward]

The funny thing in the solar world is that thinner usually translates to better, since the minority carriers have less time to recombine before reaching a contact, raising the efficiency. There is even talk on the single crystalline silicon side of going to 50um thicknesses, which actually has better mechanical strength than thicker cells since it is flexible.

In terms of thin films though the main mechanical strength comes from the glass substrate it is deposited on. For reliability I bet they are aiming at a 30+ year lifespan, since that is where silicon is at right now. CdTe just hasn't been around long enough yet to have a complete failure study. It will be fun in 10-20 years to see where it's at, but in that time the whole market could be somewhere else.

Re:Reliability?

[falconwolf]

Ideally you want the installation to last for 10 years or more without significant failures, though.

Solar PV panels tend to have warranties of 20, 25, even 30 years.

Often "thinner and cheaper" translates to "more easily broken" and "less reliable" - for example, when the units flex in high winds.

I wondered about this myself however I RTFA, I know this is /. and you're not supposed to read articles but I do. The panels are strengthened to withstand hail and high winds.

Falcon

Re:Reliability?

[sribe]

Currently you can expect a home solar panel installation to pay for itself within 7 years (here in southern Ontario).

What's the level of subsidy?

Re:Reliability?

[Ankh]

That's without subsidy. The Canadian government used to have a programme called the One Tonne Challenge, through which you could get $3,000 or so back for changing your heating system or otherwise reducing your carbon footprint, but the Conservatives ended it immediately when they came into power some 3 years ago. There may be some Ontario tax rebate programmes, but they vary too often for me to give a good answer I'm afraid. The Canadian government Web sites on energy tend to be pretty good.

If you live in, say, Texas, you'll get a lot more sunlight; if you live in Moose Factory Ontario on James Bay, or (at about the same level) the Northern part of Cornwall in the UK, you'll get even less sunlight: the days are longer in the summer, but shorter in the winter, and the sun is always further away.

So the seven years part isn't fixed, it's a very rough guideline I got from going on a course and from reading about it and talking to people who had done it.

Re:Obama's "Manhattan Project" On Alternative Ener

[jorghis]

Thats just silly, even the Exxon Valdez oil spill was over a relatively small area. And that will likely remain the worst spill in history as there are many safety mechanisms in place now to limit the damage an oil spill can cause when it does happen.

The idea that a spill would be large enough to affect multiple states seems a little crazy, how on earth can you get enough oil into one place to make that happen? Seeing as how their have been oil spills from offshore drilling in the past and they most certainly have NOT affected more than one state your assertion that they would "likely affect more than one state" just isnt true.

Re:Obama's "Manhattan Project" On Alternative Ener

[maxume]

Your analogy does not make sense. Java is to oil as COBOL is to coal, the newer, better, exact same thing.

I do like the way that you dance around and pretend that it is just the 'oil industry' that produces carbon emissions, rather than the end users of petrochemicals.

Re:The old black question

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you may be seriously underestimating the deliciousness of nachos.

Albeit not from the 7-11.

Re:Obama's "Manhattan Project" On Alternative Ener

[Devout_IPUite]

It's compensating for an externality last I knew. Something markets are chronically definitively bad at. We don't like smog, drivers don't pay for smog. Thus we tax the smog. That's basic and solid economics.

Re:Obama's "Manhattan Project" On Alternative Ener

[Anonymous Coward]

Fantastic, unless you live in a rural area where there is no public transportation, and commuting by foot or bike is not feasible due to distance and weather. I wish I could sell my car and take the bus - but there isn't one.

Re:Obama's "Manhattan Project" On Alternative Ener

[Devout_IPUite]

Quick! You don't agree with me! I better accuse you of drinking something that obviously makes you a snob! What'll it be? Tea, wine, or caffelattes?

Not everyone wants to live in lower Manhattan

[Anonymous Coward]

I like New York City just as much as the next guy (hey its a ton of fun when you're in your twenties and don't have any responsibilities), but the real price of living there is not paying $11.00 to drive a car, it means living in places the size of lunch boxes (that is, unless you're filthy rich)

I for one, like the fact that when I grew up that I didn't have to share a bedroom with my siblings. I don't intend that my kids have to share bedrooms. And that means, living in a place where most people have to drive (though I am privileged enough to be within biking distance of my job)

But hey, not everyone is that lucky.

Re:Not everyone wants to live in lower Manhattan

[Anonymous Coward]

To repeat the GP, that's fine so long as you don't mind paying out the ass for that luxurious standard of living and the extra energy it requires. Should I ever have kids, it'll be two to a bedroom and at most 1 TV for the whole house - that's much more luxurious than my grandparents had it, and much more indulgent than anyone needs to have a good childhood or grow up to be a fine and productive adult.

FFS, do you want something for nothing?

[EWAdams]

How much energy does it take to maintain an oil platform in the North Sea? How much energy did it take to build Hoover Dam? We're not going to get a magic machine that gives us energy and costs none to build. Even if the answer is "years and years," the point is that we're trading dirty energy for clean energy, so it's worth doing.

Re:FFS, do you want something for nothing?

[Anonymous Coward]

The point is that if they take as much energy or more to build than they generate over their lifetime, then they will be net sinks of energy.

Re:FFS, do you want something for nothing?

[Anonymous Coward]

The point is, this question has been answered time and time again, and, since the 1960's, photovoltaics have been a net positive. DJARUM72 gave a pretty good start at it an hour before your post. Unless their lifetime is measured in days and not years, they're pretty impressive.

Are you only asking to spread FUD, troll?

Re:FFS, do you want something for nothing?

[Dare nMc]

still a fair question, if the answer was more years than the panel will last (very doubtful.) Then burning oil now is not a environmentally positive solution for society. though I would still want enough to cover my camper, since I can't locate electric for it where I go (generator noise is frowned upon.)

Re:FFS, do you want something for nothing?

[sribe]

How much energy does it take to maintain an oil platform in the North Sea? How much energy did it take to build Hoover Dam?

Roughly speaking, a lot and a lot. Also roughly speaking, a tiny fraction of the energy that they will product over their life spans--rounding errors or less.

Re:Obama's "Manhattan Project" On Alternative Ener

[Anonymous Coward]

mccain is actually pushing other alterantives and even an obama campaign spokesperson said mccain would be better on the environmental front because obama is planning on taking his time in doing anything in that area.

mccain while a senator has pushed a lot of bills through for funding of alternative energy sources. He is not only about oil, and he is also at odds with the GOP on many issues, environmental and energy are two of them (and he isnt that different from obama on this according to many analyists).

Further rural folk, ya know the farmers who make the food people in places like NYC eat, require vehicles that are more capable. You will not see many electric vehicles hauling fencing materials to mend a fence that keeps livestock in, you wont see many electric vehicles that plow and till fields. And its unfair to push blame and responsibility on the people that are providing stuff that urbanites cannot - namely food. When was the last time you saw someone raising beef, or rice or corn or ... in any quantity in a urban city? Do you think that stuff magically gets to market? Do you think that its just going to go away?

Further you suggest bicycles and public transport, ok, well I guess if you lived in the rural part of california my parents live in, you could ride your bike 10 miles to the nearest bus stop and *hope* that it shows up that day (it does not always, you must call first to arrange it then its still a chance). Want to commute to work? Well that is likely going to be 50 miles or so in an area that sees over 100 degree summers and snow in the winter. The mountain roads are narrow, windy, no bike lanes, and sometimes icy. Just what you want to ride your bike on at night after a hard day of working.

So really what you propose is not practical for everyone, sure its practical if you live in a city, and sure 90% of americans do live in major cities, or immediate suburbs to them, so yes a lot can be done. That does not however mean that public transit and bicycles are the answer everywhere. That does not mean alternative fuels are the answer everywhere until you can get the torque and dependability out of vehicles like 18 wheelers, tractors and other things that are used to bring the food into NYC so you can ride your bike to the local pizza shop.

I think looking outside your local neighborhood at the country and even world as a whole would be better than just saying things that are inaccurate and only fit certain models would be a good thing. /lived in NYC area for 13 years //grew up on a farm ///lives in europe now and rides a bike and takes the tram - gas is $9/gal and people here dont complain

Re:Obama's "Manhattan Project" On Alternative Ener

[curmudgeon99]

The reason none of these things have gone on line is because of the attitudes of people like you. There has been no concerted investment, ala the Manhattan Project. In lieu of any concentrated, directed effort to achieve a goal, nothing gets accomplished.

The sun shines reliably for a large fraction of the day--why not invest in that?

I find it curious how your standards of acceptability change: in the case of the alternatives available: switch grass, solar, wind, you play the pessimist. In the case of oil available off the coasts, suddenly you're an optimist. The US Department of Energy [you know, the one with all the Bush appointees in it] has said that 1.) offshore oil will not enter the supply chain for ten years minimum, not "a couple years" [implying 2], as you allege.

Next you toss out the red-herring [meaning irrelevant] point of the Chinese drilling in Cuba--a claim which has been shown to be false so clearly that former GOP Candidate Rudy Guilliani himself uses future tense to describe this alleged problem, which is still a red herring. Do two wrongs make a right? [China allegedly drilling around Cuba and the US drilling off Florida?]

Again, when you address the oil industry, it's all solid to you. When it comes to alternatives, it's "pie-in-the-sky". What are you, an oil-industry flack? You reluctant to learn new things or something?

Though Nuclear does have the benefit of no greenhouse gases, it still has the same fundamental problem that oil does: it's business model is predicated on NOT dealing with its wastes! We STILL doe not have a solution to the incredibly toxic wastes we've been generating for decades. The only solution is to hide the waste. You think this is a viable alternative? Or, are you a Nuclear Energy devotee who has some business interest in that industry. When you advocate dirty technologies, how can we take you seriously?

By the way, I lived in Houston and there is mass transit which I used while working for HP

. And the solution is not--duh--biking 30 miles, it's moving closer to your work and downsizing your stuff.

As I can re-iterate: I have lived all over the United States and this model in NYC is the only one I see as being viable. I've lived and commuted in Omaha, Phoenix, Houston, Cincinnati and Salt Lake City. I always chose to live as close as possible to work.

Such name calling as labeling environmentalism "psychobabble" is convincing fewer and fewer people, my friend. The babble is coming from you fools who seem to prefer fouling your own nests.

The company GOOG onvested in?

[blind biker]

Which solar cell company was it, does anyone know?

Re:The company GOOG onvested in?

[falconwolf]

Which solar cell company was it, does anyone know?

NanoSolar.

Falcon

Re:Obama's "Manhattan Project" On Alternative Ener

[Devout_IPUite]

First I heard of Obama supporting the offshore drilling was commenting on the republican theatrics during the break demanding a vote for offshore drilling. I think that was largely a compromise for him to try to move things forward. There was actually a long back and forth between McCain and Obama about the offshore drilling. I certainly think that both McCain and Obama would work to promote energy reform, but I suspect that Obama would be more aggressive on the issue (I think they're both lying towards center with Obama sitting a bit more reformist than McCain who I suspect would take a more casual market driven approach to the issue).

Not that I know for sure...

[v(*_*)vvvv]

but this totally reminds me of those paper towels that have twice as many sheets by adjusting the distance between tear off lines. Since the per unit price is per sheet, they look awful cheap, but are actually just the same in terms of square feet.

If these solar cells are cheaper by square feet then this would totally be the case :(

You would need more to do the same thing.

Re:Not that I know for sure...

[RJFerret]

If these solar cells are cheaper by square feet then this would totally be the case :(

Thankfully they aren't ridiculously priced "per sheet" or "per panel" or "by square feet", but per watt.

Per TFA, "...have a manufacturing cost of $1.14/W. This is way below the selling price of $2.45/W..."

They take a tenth of the time to make, using a hundredth of the thickness of it's active element compared to silicon.

Lowering our standard of living is out.

[EWAdams]

Oil IS yesterday, and energy savings are good if we can obtain them in a painless way such as insulating our attics or improving the efficiency of our cars. But it's not just the corporations that see no profit in a low-impact life; ordinary people see no pleasure in it either.

I'm tired of installing overpriced compact fluorescents that give dim, ugly light. I'm not going to bring a week's worth of groceries for a family of four home on my bike or on the bus. I'm going to keep my house at the temperature I like rather than feel hot and sweaty all summer and cold all winter. The world demand for energy is not going to go down through self-sacrifice -- we can put that notion out of our heads right now. It might make you feel superior; it would only make me feel like I've moved to a Third World country, at a time when the Third World is working its butt off to become First World, and that means consuming more energy.

Improve efficiency, fine. Improve production, fine. Cut back expenditure through self-denial? Screw that. Life is too short for it to be unpleasant as well.

Re:Lowering our standard of living is out.

[curmudgeon99]

Well, if you want the convenience then you should have to pay out the ass for it. That's your only real defense. If our environment can't take it, then you need to suffer and like it.

Re:Lowering our standard of living is out.

[falconwolf]

I'm tired of installing overpriced compact fluorescents that give dim, ugly light.

Overpriced CFLs? When the last incandescent light bulbs I had burnt out early this year I bought a pack of 2 CFLs from Walmart for under $4. My 12 watt CFLs put out as much as a 60 watt incandescent bulb, or I could have gotten 15 watt bulbs that put out 75 watt equivalent. While I'd prefer if they were a little cooler, more blue instead of the yellow they are, I could have gotten CFLs with a lower colour temperature. Well I didn't see any at Walmart but they are available.

I'm not going to bring a week's worth of groceries for a family of four home on my bike or on the bus

I'm with you there. When I didn't have use of a car I had to go grocery shopping 3 or 4 tymes a week. However I think zoning laws and regulations have partially created this problem. Here's where city farms and gardens can help, they won't feed everyone but they take pressure off some.

I'm going to keep my house at the temperature I like rather than feel hot and sweaty all summer and cold all winter.

Properly insulated buildings shouldn't need any heating or cooling to keep comfortable. Where heating is needed, because of bad insulation in old buildings for instance, geothermal under floor heating is efficient. Actually though it's cheaper to add insulation to a building than it is to add geothermal heating.

Cut back expenditure through self-denial? Screw that. Life is too short for it to be unpleasant as well.

So make others pay in the future so you can remain comfortable?

Falcon

Re:Lowering our standard of living is out.

[bindo]

Insightful? well it is to know some people really think like that.
Maybe I am feeding a troll, maybe your rant is just a part of the picture and you are more balanced in your vision, but...

Reality doesn't give a damn that I'm tired of installing overpriced compact fluorescents that give dim, ugly light.

reality is that we need a major breakthrough or we are in for an energy crisis. No, energy supply will not end. It will become FUKING expensive over time.

As the people who lost their house to a mortgage gone bad live in a car, you WILL turn off aircon when it will become too expensive. Or at least you will keep it at 23C^ and not 18^ .... unless you are a RICH man....

Again your wallet doesn't care how you feel.

Dont' believe its coming? fine your guess is as good as mine ...

Don't believe its possible ?

educate yourself : http://newsgroups.derkeiler.com/Archive/Soc/soc.history.medieval/2008-07/msg00083.html

sure in a couple of centuries it produced the industrial revolution. Mainly kicking wheeners in the butt, making them adapt and face reality to find new solutions.

Just hope it will take us less.

bindo

Re:Obama's "Manhattan Project" On Alternative Ener

[Anonymous Coward]

I live in Atlanta, and I can tell you that these jerks that build 5-bedroom houses outside the city for 2 people to live in should be forced to ride bikes 30 miles in the sun to get to work. If you want to work here, park here, pollute here, pee here, etc... you should live here. The problem with the "REAL world" is that people think they shouldn't be accountable. Meanwhile, lakes are drying up, and air quality is deteriorating. The sense of entitlement will go away once things finally get bad enough to scare people in their own homes.

Re:The old black question

[wvmarle]

A solar cell is not persistent: they have a limited life time. So it is an issue whether the energy you get out of them is more than the energy put in to make them.

The easiest measure for a layman (albeit far from accurate) is the total cost. How much does a solar kWh cost, and how much does a conventional kWh cost? If solar energy is cheaper, then certainly they are energy positive. Assuming no government subsidies either way of course.

Re:Obama's "Manhattan Project" On Alternative Ener

[curmudgeon99]

New York is NOT centrally located. People travel from all over to get here. I have a one-hour commute from one end of the B train to Manhattan, every day. The difference is I move my body, not a big hunk of metal. I read during that hour and it's not that bad. NYC has a great transit system because it had no choice. We' damn fools for building suburbs so spread out. NYC is spread out but the population density is such that you do not have a yard and a garage and you have much less fractional cost to commute. An unlimited subway pass for a month in NYC is $81.00. How much do you spend on Gas, Insurance, maintenance, parking and tickets over a month? I rest my case.

SLC when I lived there was getting the message and building light rail as fast as possible.

Houston, on the other hand

was building super highways as fast as possible.

I agree that many communities are spread out--but that is the problem. We should not be enabling the mistakes but rectifying them. The mistake WAS building so spread out.

I had a car for decades but you find out that you can become healthier and less frazzled by getting rid of your car. I myself did it. Everybody in NYC uses these ubiquitous hand carts that make it easy to grocery shop. There are fewer fat people here because everybody walks between subway stations. You may like your stuff, pal, but this planet cannot take much more. You should have your freedom to own your stuff and you should pay for the true cost of owning that stuff. From now on, pollution must be accounted for. Why do you think you should be allowed to buy cheap goods that pollute the environment? You know if gas was priced to account for the filth it introduces into our air and water, it would be much more expensive. If you are willing to pay the real cost of that pollution, go right ahead and buy your stuff. But don't expect our children to pay the true costs.

Re:Obama's "Manhattan Project" On Alternative Ener

[jorghis]

I certainly think that both McCain and Obama would work to promote energy reform, but I suspect that Obama would be more aggressive on the issue

And what basis do you have for thinking that? What is it you think Obama would do that would do that McCain would not? Its not like "alternative energy" is some issue that only enviromentalist hippies care about. Republicans want it too because being dependent on a lot of unstable governments that dont like us for huge amounts of oil is terrible from both an economic perspective and security perspective, two issues which they care deeply about.

As of right now, the only thing I am convinced of is that your view that Obama would be more aggresive on the issue is evidence that Obama's attacks on McCain are working in spite of the fact that he has offered nothing that McCain hasnt. If anyone thinks that McCain is in the pocket of oil companies or that Obama will do something that will cause alternative energy to take off that McCain wont then that person needs to provide some support for that claim imho.

Re:The old black question

[Jorophose]

Driving to 711 for slurpees of course.

Re:Obama's "Manhattan Project" On Alternative Ener

[Graff]

McCain is so old school he can only imagine increasing the supply of oil. What he and the GOP don't like is the obvious need to encourage commuting by bicycle and public transit--as we have here in NYC--so that people like me can gleefully sell their cars and live without one.

Have you been living under a rock? Here's what John McCain has said about his energy strategy:

The strategy I propose won't be another grab bag of handouts to this or that industry and a full employment act for lobbyists. It will promote the diversification and conservation of our energy sources that will in sufficient time break the dominance of oil in our transportation sector just as we diversified away from oil use in electric power generation thirty years ago; and substantially reduce the impact of our energy consumption on the planet.
...

Energy efficiency by using improved technology and practicing sensible habits in our homes, businesses and automobiles is a big part of the answer, and is something we can achieve right now. And new advances will make conservation an ever more important part of the solution. Improved light bulbs can use much less energy; smart grid technology can help homeowners and businesses lower their energy use, and breakthroughs in high tech materials can greatly improve fuel efficiency in the transportation sector.

McCain has said over and over again that offshore drilling is not a total solution, it is just needed to get our economy back on track and as a stopgap measure until other energy sources can be fully developed and implemented. If you actually go out and do some research you'll see that he has a ton of ideas on how to do this, from electric and hybrid vehicles to solar and wind energy and, yes, nuclear. He backs these ideas up with sound reasoning and solid proposals on how to encourage their development.

As to your proposals:

Electromagnetic energy taken from the ionosphere

Highly unlikely. Do you understand how high up the ionosphere is? How do you propose we keep some sort of generation equipment at an altitude of at least 50 miles? How do you propose that the energy be transported, the machinery be maintained? Somehow I think the costs of obtaining energy directly from the ionosphere will be very prohibitive, especially in the near future.

Seawater desalination by solar-cell-powered electrolosis, generating hydrogen

So you want to remove the salt from water, then electrolyze it? That will be kind of tough to do once you've made the water non-conductive don't you think? Or is it that you want to electrolyze it and then desalinate it? Wouldn't that just concentrate the salts and make it cost more energy to desalinate? This proposal makes no sense at all, if you are generating energy with solar cells then why would you go through a wasteful step such as electrolysis, just use the electricity directly and save the conversion step!

Vast swaths of the Western US need to get covered with wind farms.

This is the most reasonable thing you've said. Of course there are huge costs associated with wind farms, many areas can't use them effectively, and those that can use wind farms are already doing so. If placing a wind generator on a piece of land would produce enough electricity to pay for itself and make a profit then you can bet that the land owner will put one up. The fact that the technology has been slow to adopt shows that right now it is marginal in the cost to benefit ratio. Will this change? Sure it will but you can't expect people to waste their money right now on technology that won't provide them with a significant return.

Now I know people will say, "Then subsidize it!" That's great for the people directly benefitting from the subsidy but all it means is

Re:Obama's "Manhattan Project" On Alternative Ener

[curmudgeon99]

News Flash for you, dude. Our entire economy is government managed. Unless you're willing to eliminate the FDIC, the Fed, the SEC, the IRS and all of the governmental organizations that separate us from the French Revolution, you're already living with lots of artificial markets.

I only think that we should lean our collective interest away from oil, which clearly is not healthy in the long term.

Cost of manufacturing

[objekt]

Not based on this new technology, but here's the info:

From http://www.nrel.gov/pv/pv_manufacturing/cost_capacity.html

National Renewable Energy Laboratory
Photovoltaic Research - PV Manufacturing R&D
Cost/Capacity Analysis

The PV Manufacturing R&D Project Coordination Team measures and tracks the progress of the Project's impact on module cost and production capacity. The module-manufacturing partners voluntarily provide the team with two types of critical information: direct costs of module manufacturing and manufacturing capacity. The direct costs are those costs directly associated with module production and do not include such costs as research, sales/marketing, or general administrative expenses.

Direct costs of module manufacturing dropped from $5.89 per peak watt in 1992 to $2.73 per peak watt in 2005 dollars. These results represent a total cost reduction of about 54%, or an average annual drop in direct cost of about 5.5 percent. In addition to supplying the most recent year's data, these partners supply their projections for the coming 5 years.

The cost/capacity graph below shows the 2005 data of 14 Project participants with active module manufacturing lines in 2005. A participant in this case refers to a subcontractor with a manufacturing line. The graph shows continued progress toward meeting the Project goals of decreasing direct costs of manufacturing and increasing production capacity.

PV Industry Cost/Capacity (DOE/US Industry Partnership)

The production capacity shown is the total capacity of the 14 participants. It represents the potential production if all the plants were running at full capacity. Through 2005, the graph shows that total module production capacity grew from 14 MW at the start of PVMaT subcontracts in 1992 to 251 MW at the close of 2005. These results represent a 19-fold increase or about 26% average annual growth in production capacity among these Project participants.

From the perspective of technology learning curves, these data reflect an average 17% drop in direct costs of manufacturing for every doubling of production capacity.

Re:Cost of manufacturing

[arrowrod]

Woo Hoo, my tax dollars at work. Results from 2005... What is 2008 going to bring? 10 gigawatts? 2009 100 gigawatts? Wait a second, the power grid won't support these numbers. It is OK, congress is on vacation.

Re:Cost of manufacturing

[objekt]

The OP is what 2008 will bring. And if you had gone to the link I gave, you'd see a graph that predicts todays numbers pretty accurately.

Re:Obama's "Manhattan Project" On Alternative Ener

[strabes]

A preliminary note: Your analogy is Greek to me; I'm not a programmer. :)

Why waste another dime on trying to extend the supply.

Because that is what the market will voluntarily bear (without government coercion), and the government doesn't know best what fuels I should be using, just like the government doesn't know best who I should marry (gay marriage), what I can put into my body (War on Drugs), and which products I can buy (import/export restrictions & industry subsidies like farms).

We need diverse and varied sources of energy that are renewable. We need to try several things and let the marketplace choose which ones are the best.

This is exactly what is happening right now. There are so many alternative energy companies right now that exist with little to no government funding. Have you heard of the T. Boone Pickens plan? Check it out, it's really interesting. Anyway, my point is simply that the (Federal) Government need not and should not get involved in something outside its Constitutionally-defined scope of power.

Anybody who roots for more oil drilling is just some deluded troglodyte

Your post was pretty good until this ad hominem. I could write a different blanket statement about people against offshore drilling, for example: "All opponents of offshore drilling are environmentalist hippies who shred the Constitution and think the government knows best how to run our lives." It's obviously not true and adds nothing to the discussion. Hopefully I haven't offended you; I'm just trying to have a friendly discussion.

Re:Obama's "Manhattan Project" On Alternative Ener

[curmudgeon99]

Point taken: the entire petroleum industry needs to change. I have merely focused on oil in the interest of a unified argument

.

Re:Obama's "Manhattan Project" On Alternative Ener

[cbelle13013]

Having lived in all those places, you should be the first one to understand that not everyone can bike to work and walk to the grocery store.

Reality check

[jmorris42]

> Oil is yesterday.

No it isn't. Oil is so TODAY. And it will be our short term future as well because no large scale migration on the scale you greens assume is coming has ever occured. Hell, it took a decade to migrate from VHS to DVD and the installed physical plant for home video is literally trivial compared to a full rip and replace for the whole petroleum extraction, refining, transport/storage, automobile market.

> McCain is so old school he can only imagine increasing the supply of oil.

Damn, I haven't even committed to voting for the asshole (McCain Fiengold vs the 1st Amendment is the blocker) and now I have to defend his positions.... because you are just lying. He is a green. He is for cap and trade, alternative energy and all your gaywad issues so please try to be honest in the future. It is acceptable to believe he isn't 'pure enough' compared to a real green socialist like Obambi but you don't have to lie to debate. McCain is just realistic enough to know we need to do 'all of the above.' Right now we need to be working both the supply and demand sides of the equation. It's called economics, but I doubt you know much about that.

> This style of low-impact life, where you're not always dragging
> around a big metal car with you..

That might work out for you in NYC where mass transit is plentiful and walking distances are reasonable. Try it in flyover country sometimes. Of course you like to preen and brag about your low-impact life but I'd suspect you folks living your low-impact NYC lifestyles consume more resources per capita than a redneck in a mobile home and a big ass pickup.

> Corporations don't like a low-stuff life because they can't take
> as much of our money away, then.

And we just knew this was coming, the standard issue hate on the 'evil corporations' and their infernal ability to force people to buy their products. The solution is simple and market based, your arguments to live a simple green monastic lifestyle need to be more convincing than the TV's argument to BUY, BUY, BUY. So far you haven't so instead of continuing to attempt to convince those poor ignorant people clinging to their guns and religion you have decided to just use the government to tell em what they shall do because dammnit you are Right and they are Stupid and it just isn't fair that stupid people can ruin your plans.

Re:Reality check

[kesuki]

"> Oil is yesterday.

No it isn't. Oil is so TODAY. And it will be our short term future as well because no large scale migration on the scale you greens assume is coming has ever occured. Hell, it took a decade to migrate from VHS to DVD and the installed physical plant for home video is literally trivial compared to a full rip and replace for the whole petroleum extraction, refining, transport/storage, automobile market."

I'll bite, you don't count brazil, when you claim no large scale move from fossil fuels to bio fuels has ever been attempted. it's been done, once, in a country where it's very easy to grow sugar cane, harvest it, and make both electricity and also ethanol from the harvest of natures bounty. in fact they no longer need to import oil because their existing oil infrastructure can supply all the fuel they need that doesn't come from green sources. although, myself i'd rank cane sugar as a 'yellow' energy source, the massive massive deforestation required to produce enough cane sugar to feed a moderate sized country like brazil has had terrible side effects.

algae is already being tested as a commercially viable energy source, algea can be produced with much much less land usage, for example, soybeans, which require crop rotation with corn(corn needing 2 years for every year of soy), would require 150 times as many acers of dedicated growing land as algae. Currently the majority of biodiesel comes from soy, although palm oil has been up and coming in rain forest nations. palm oil is still a greenish energy source, since it comes from the fruit of trees, although rain forest must be destroyed to make palm oil plantations, at least trees can maintain the ability of that land to remain arable for future generations.

algae requires a lot of water, but even salt water can be used, and if we pump enough salt water onto land, it might offset melt water that will eventuially flood the earth if global warming isn't stopped. because we as a people can only change how we do things as a nation, and lead by example, if china takes 50 years to follow suit, what will be wil be. oh hey, did i mention partially treated sewage can be used as a growth catylst for algae?

the idea of using algae instead of oil was first thought up in the 70's if we'd had real leadership, it would have grown and prospered the way cane ethanol did in brazil, and we'd know if there are any nasty side effects... or if it's a truly green source of energy.

the single biggest threat to the earth though is human population. like locusts ravaging acres of land, we're destroying every sort or natural habitat to build roads, houses, malls, factories, and of course dumps to throw away everything we bought that broke or we didn't like...

in 100 years there will be twice as many people on the same sized earth, that's not a pretty picture for those who want nature to be able to progess in natural ways.

Re:Obama's "Manhattan Project" On Alternative Ener

[twiddlingbits]

Idiot, the OIL is PROVEN, it's there!! The others are (excepting wind) still in the lab or low rate intial production. I've been around long enough to know reality from fantasy. If you think the Chi-Comms are not holding oil leases in Cuba you need to get your news from someplace besides the NY Slimes. Rudy was another New York centered idiot just like you. Are you a flack for some green-energy venture fund or something? So fucking what about Houston, light rail in the places I mention cover maybe 40% of the city, and buses maybe 70%. I bet you money in Houston you had a car didn't you? So what are millions of Americans supposed to do with houses they can't sell because you think they should move to town? Just because you CHOSE to live close to work you now think you should FORCE all Americans to live close to work to say energy? What if I don't want to send my kids to a crappy school system or put up with crime and pollution. (oh yea you never did mention how we manfacture all these technologies without OIL) You are a idiot left wing dumbasss Obama plant who has no fucking clue how things work in the 95% of America outside the city. Of course that makes you an expert on /. Just play in NYC traffic, I don't have time to waste on idiots like you, I need to get in my SUV to go get some gas to mow my 1 acre front yard and so some work in my garden.

Re:Obama's "Manhattan Project" On Alternative Ener

[Jorophose]

Oil is yesterday. McCain is so old school he can only imagine increasing the supply of oil. What he and the GOP don't like is the obvious need to encourage commuting by bicycle and public transit--as we have here in NYC--so that people like me can gleefully sell their cars and live without one. This style of low-impact life, where you're not always dragging around a big metal car with you, does not offer as many profit opportunities. Corporations don't like a low-stuff life because they can't take as much of our money away, then.

Take your Ingsoc fantasies somewhere else please. We're not going to drop our standards of living to "help the situation" when the situation doesn't need helping.

We have any oil to continue fueling the world for a while to come. You want to point the finger at someone? Point the finger at the PRC and India, who simply bought out, stole, or copied whatever ressources we have (be they designs, actual crude, or whatever) and refused to do any real advancements.

If we dropped ALL of our coal and oil usage today it'd be a drop in the bucket if the chinese and indians didn't. It's already getting to the point where they outproduce and outconsume the rest of the world when it comes to fossil fuels. Why should we foot the bill for them?

Re:Obama's "Manhattan Project" On Alternative Ener

[Anonymous Coward]

All those groceries you haul around in hand carts sure as hell didn't get to NYC in a big fucking hand cart. They came in on rail, in boats and in trucks. Those all use petroleum based fuel.

Don't act like hauling your groceries in a hand cart makes some huge fucking difference to the environment. Because it doesn't.

By the way, if gas was priced to account for the filth it introduces into our air and water, it would be much more expensive, and consequently all the goods in NYC would be way more expensive, and hopefully, at the very least, you'd be reduced to abject poverty and starvation you pompous fucking windbag.

You know what else pays back in 7 years?

[KKlaus]

Investing that money in the stock market. Key differences between investing in stocks and solar panels:

You get to keep your original money with stocks.

Your stock portfolio won't "wear out" over time.

I don't understand why people think that getting back to financial baseline on their solar panel investment is some great achievement. Unless you were planning on hiding your money in your back yard for those intervening years, had you not put panels on your roof, you are still deep, deep in the red. Opportunity costs are Econ 101, and need to be included in any discussion of the economics of solar panel installation.

Re:You know what else pays back in 7 years?

[Anonymous Coward]

Because they are environmentalists and failed econ 101?

I kid.

Re:You know what else pays back in 7 years?

[Anonymous Coward]

You get to keep your original money with stocks? I got some Enron stock for you, pal.

Re:You know what else pays back in 7 years?

[theglassishalf]

Some payback calculations assume x rate of return as a comparison, others don't. Don't assume.

Also, remember that the life of solar is greater than 7 years, so after that it's all "gravy"...or, in other words, you get a dividend into perpetuity (or when you sell the house.) Because the payback time is less than 10 years, you know that the dividend is better than 10 percent/year, which is far more than one can expect from stocks. So, if necessary, you can extend the payback time a few years to account for a regular rate of return, but it still ends up positive.

Also, they are in inflation-proof investment, which is better than can be said for almost everything else right now.

-Daniel

Re:You know what else pays back in 7 years?

[Ankh]

An off-grid solar + wind system can easily cost $60,000, but if, like us, you live in a rural area it could quite literally be a life saver. Spending $60,000 with no idea how it would affect your costs would be like gambling all your money away on the stock market.

You need to budget for long-term maintenance. And to do that you need to know about reliability of the equipment, and about how long before it's paid for itself, to work out the average costs including replacement parts.

Re:Obama's "Manhattan Project" On Alternative Ener

[curmudgeon99]

One point: you desalinate BY electrolysis. Then a smaller volume of brine is sent back to the ocean, to dissipate. And any ideas are just that: ideas. I love how you are so quick to reject a possible, i.e. electromagnetic energy. Remember Tesla? We need to consider every idea.

I'm sure that McCain is ready to offer some ideas that he think will placate the left [in the same way that Bush lied in 2000, saying he would support CO2 reductions and then during his presidency he worked as hard as possible to do the exact opposite]. The reality is, McCain has oil-industry lobbyists working for him and so I do not trust him to oppose his oil-industry friends. I do not think we should spend another government-funded or supported dime on finding new sources of oil. Can't you even see two feet in front of your face that oil is bad for this planet?

You're like petroleum addicts who are going to quit, but just one more barrel. You're St. Augustine saying "God, make me chase--but not yet, not yet!" Well, we've gotten enough damage from you me firsters.

nanosolar

[caindie]

What is it about nanosolar - nanosolar.com - that nobody seems to get.

Nanosolar sells solar cells at $1 per watt today.
It announced production shipments in Jan 2008
It sold out its entire production capacity before the end of Jan.
Its production capacity in January of 2008 was 430 mega watts per year
This figure is larger then the combined production capacity of all other companies
in the united states - I repeat - combined.
It manufactures in northern california
It is privately financed by a who's who of private capital investors

Werner Dumanski, Executive Vice President of Operations, was IBM's top manufacturing executive prior to joining Nanosolar, responsible for the company's $4.5 billion storage components business, a world-wide organization of 12,000 people, and a billion-dollar equipment budget.

Panels have a 25 year waranty
Panels operate at up to 14.5% efficiency

Has announced the availability of a new non vacuum thin film production technology based on printing technology - nanosolar uses printing technology to make solar cells - which produces solar cells at the rate of 100 feet per minute - rated at 1 giga watt of production per year - see it in action below:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ClLKVs9oSxE&eurl=http://www.nanosolar.com/blog3/

Machine cost - 1.65 million dollars - nice profit for self financing of growth.

Has said that this solar cell printing technology can be scaled to 2000 feet per minute - and are on track to do so.

cons:

Has not yet reached production capacities
Actual efficiency of production panels has not been released

Could it be that nanosolar is a private company - and intends to stay that way - which ensures its lack of mind share?

Could it be that nanosolar developed a thin film production technology that does not require vacuum technology and has potentially threatened research budgets.

Still - the panels ship - validating the intellect and vision of one person - martin roscheisen - against all the nay sayers.

And no - I have no connection with either nanosolar or roscheisen.

Re:nanosolar

[show me altoids]

Nanosolar sells solar cells by the sea shore?

Re:nanosolar

[caindie]

right -

by the way, did you know that titus the tailor told ten tall tails to titania the titmouse?

Re:nanosolar

[kesuki]

they've had their 1.65 million dollar toy for 2 months now, if it produces 1 gw a year, they should have sold 1/6th a GW of solar cells or 166 megawatts, enough for 16 commercial 10 mw plants.

i realize demand is higher than that...

Re:nanosolar

[caindie]

Their first year's production was sold before the end of january. At the time their capacity was 480 mega watts a year.

The new machine will up that. But it is a new machine. I expect it will work in parallel with existing equipment and as it ups either the density or the speed (or both) of printing, it would not be unusual to have initial teething problems in proof of concept testing before it goes into full production.

One of their investors is the largest distributor of photo-voltaics in Europe. There is evidence that shipments are headed there. Nano solar is also building another plant, in Germany, I think.

However much solar gets installed this year around the world, a large portion of it will be from nano solar.

A problem I see is that this will not reduce the end user price for solar.

So long as other technology is selling for $5+ per watt, there is no incentive for distributors to drop the price.

Buy in quantity at $1 per watt and sell at the same price as the competition. Keep the profit and hire thugs to ensure no one else is able to get an allocation from nanosolar.

Demand far outstrips supply.

However, were 10 1 giga watt machines online, I expect things might begin to change. Up the print speed from 100 ft per minute to 2000 ft per minute and the market will probably have more capacity then there is ability to bring new plants online.

I also expect this would have major repercussions for the industry.

Already, an additional political problem has turned up.

In the US, it suddenly became necessary to suspend applications to build new solar plants for two years so that the environmental impact of new solar capacity could be studied and appropriate policy developed.

I realize this attempt to stymie distribution was rolled back, but I think it is just one of the problems disruptive technology like nano-solar's has to face.

Things will get interesting when some huge ny stock exchange type firm tries to buy nanosolar and when refused, simply steals the patents.

Litigation is just part of the cost of doing business for firms like that. And provides welcome publicity for their new product.

Such a firm would then roll out a brand name and trade on public recognition, while orders dry up for nano-solar and litigation goes on forever.

Eventually nanosolar would win in court, but by that time manufacturing will be in china or india etc and no one will care.

That's why you hear nothing now.

There is an opportunity in micro generation for nanosolar, but I don't know if they are pursuing this approach.

Whatever happens, I wish them well.

They have shown that a million half wits babbling in a room will never produce a line of Shakespeare - or more particularly no matter how many half wits are working on a problem, they will never do the work of one truly intelligent person.

Re:nanosolar

[falconwolf]

Nano solar is also building another plant, in Germany, I think.

In Berlin.

In the US, it suddenly became necessary to suspend applications to build new solar plants for two years so that the environmental impact of new solar capacity could be studied and appropriate policy developed.

Only on federal land. However the BLM, Bureau of Land Management, reversed course.

Falcon

Re:Obama's "Manhattan Project" On Alternative Ener

[scarld]

China is not drilling offshore Cuba. Please stop spreading this myth. Link

Re:Obama's "Manhattan Project" On Alternative Ener

[Anonymous Coward]

Look at it this way - without offshore drilling, oil keeps getting more expensive (offshore drilling as far as I know is only a short delay in the inevitable anyways). Suddenly solar becomes much more competitive price-wise.

Solar is ready now - it's just not as cheap. The "any day now" argument is just that there's constant improvements. However, you can use today's technologies - tomorrows just will be better. However, if you wait for tomorrows technologies, you are accomplishing nothing.

Re:Obama's "Manhattan Project" On Alternative Ener

[SirLurksAlot]

An unlimited subway pass for a month in NYC is $81.00. How much do you spend on Gas, Insurance, maintenance, parking and tickets over a month? I rest my case.

First of all good for you that you take public transit, not everyone has that choice. Secondly, you are right, it is more expensive to own a car, but I get the benefit of personal freedom. I'm not restricted to going only where the train/subway/bus will travel. If I want to go somewhere off the transit system I can get there no problem. By the way, I also don't have the benefit of a reliable transit system where I live. COTA (local bus transit) runs irregularly and only to the most frequented area, meaning downtown and campus and that's about it. It is much the same in other midwest cities.

I agree that many communities are spread out--but that is the problem. We should not be enabling the mistakes but rectifying them. The mistake WAS building so spread out.

As for it being a mistake to allow communities to spread out, what kind of crack are you smoking exactly? Not everyone can live in the heart of the city, and certainly not everyone wants to. I know I don't. What do you propose? You can't exactly draw a line around a certain area and say "You can't develop beyond this point!" In case you haven't noticed the world population keeps going up, and all those people have to live somewhere.

You may like your stuff, pal, but this planet cannot take much more. You should have your freedom to own your stuff and you should pay for the true cost of owning that stuff. *snip* If you are willing to pay the real cost of that pollution, go right ahead and buy your stuff. But don't expect our children to pay the true costs.

Big words coming from someone busily plugging away at a keyboard which is attached to a computer that is certainly sucking up its share of electricity. Gee, where you do you think that energy is coming from? Does your house/apartment/whatever run completely on solar/hydro/wind power? Do you grow and eat your own food? Does the transportation you use rely on any kind of renewable energy? Please, get over yourself. I want to be as environmentally friendly as the next human on the planet and do my part, but none of your suggestions are anything close to reality.

The system is far from perfect, and we need to do something to fix it, but it is ridiculous to suggest that we add an environmental tax to everything. Hell, things cost too much as it is! What you're suggesting is a recipe for disaster. Our focus should be on producing cleaner recyclables and generating energy from alternative sources, not punishing people for living their lives in a broken system.

Re:Obama's "Manhattan Project" On Alternative Ener

[curmudgeon99]

Though as an aside I 110% agree with your viewpoint that the Indians have stolen and copied from US, that is beside the point of oil. We need to put all our research money on a "Manhattan Project" style effort to get renewable technology on line. Then, we refuse to buy materials that were made by polluting.

I find it amusing how you Conservatives or Libertarians think that 2 Wrongs = 1 Right . Just because India and China are also fouling the environment, that somehow forms an argument for us to continue polluting?

Are you older than seven years old?

Can you not see how this is a ludicrous argument?

I take note that you do not attempt to defend what a wonderful effect the oil lifestyle is doing to our environment. You know oil is bad but you just don't want to have a little less comfort. You are so addicted to your stuff, that you're willing to bequeath to your and my kids a lot dirties planet. A planet that has changed obviously as a detrimental effect of our actions. You know that we're fouling up this planet and you're fine with it. You're fine with it. Can't give up your "stuff".

Re:Obama's "Manhattan Project" On Alternative Ener

[maxume]

My point was more that you really shouldn't expect BP and Shell to be the ones to help you (and other consumers) move away from petroleum products. It isn't just the industries that are responsible for the emissions, it is all the people who are their customers.

Re:Obama's "Manhattan Project" On Alternative Ener

[jmorris42]

> ..so I have no faith in the Prince-William-Sound fouling oil industry
> to not have major accidents and ruin our common coastlines and all
> the wildlife and environments that live there.

Of course I realize facts will have no bearing on your arguments, your arguments are faith based, but I hope to influence others....

I would hold that the Exxon Valdez incident argues FOR drilling ANWR. Just about everything that could go wrong did. But today you could wander that area and never realize anything untoward had ever occurred.

> Oil is not a long-term solution.

Agreed. But it IS the only short term solution anyone is proposing. If you have something that can solve the short term problem show me the patent number of you invention. Because if it isn't already patented you won't be bringing it into production in a short term timescale.

> Why waste another dime on trying to extend the supply.

Because we need energy NOW. We can't even build nuke plants fast enough to help NOW or in the 1-5 year time horizon. There are places we can drill that will, and just the information that we will be drilling will drive down energy futures instantly.

> We have clearly had something change in our weather patterns.

The weather is always changing. Whether we have Global Warming going on is debatable in light of the drop in global mean temp in the last year or so. And whether the cause of any remaining warming is human caused is even more debatable. Whether it is CO2 and the greenhouse effect is very shaky science. Personally I'd say that yes we are influencing the environment because you can't deforest half the Amazon basin and have zero impact. But whether it is warming or just a general jumbling of existing weather patterns is debatable.

> We know oil is a fossil fuel that is destined to run out.

Oil will never run out, anyone with a basic understanding of economics would have never made such a silly assertion. Oil will (as you did note) get harder to find and more expensive. If that plays out on a long enough time scale alternative sources will take over as they become viable. Long before that last drop gets hoovered up into a pipeline we will have switched to something else. Be patient, stop making things worse by entangling the government into things and believe in the invisible hand. It works.

> To use an analogy that would be understood by all the slashdotters,
> you're the guy whose advocating that we rebuild our company's
> systems in COBOL rather than Java/.NET/ or whatever newer.

Newer isn't always better. Bellsouth spent years with a website that was totally broken, to the you would just give up and call the landline and when you would mention you had TRIED to use the webpage get a tired "Ya we know it's broken." They finally either gave up or when AT&T bought em just consolidated the backends. Why do you think so much COBOL is still in service? Because successful companies know something you apparently don't. If it works leave it the hell alone. And yes, if my choices were limited to COBOL, Java or .NET I'd pick COBOL.

When was the last time you heard of a COBOL codebase on a mainframe falling over? Thought so.

> Anybody who roots for more oil drilling is just some deluded troglodyte

Way to demonize anyone for daring to disagree with their betters. Listen up you primitive screwhead, only 1st World enonomies have the luxury of caring about the environment. Show me the Greenpeace office is Somolia. Hell, show me the Greenpeace office in Russia and they are 2nd World. So job one, if you really cared about the environment, would be ensuring we stay 1st World long enough to succesfully migrate and that more people get 1st World status.

Re:Obama's "Manhattan Project" On Alternative Ener

[Anonymous Coward]

You wrote "And all that is going to happen WHEN?"

    The answer is pretty darn soon. Photovoltaics are growing at 50% a year.

    In 2007, about 150 megawatts of PV was installed in the US. The nameplate capacity of all US electrical generators is about 1 terawatt.

    At these growth rates, in five years we will see annual installations top 1 GW. That would still be tiny compared to the installed base, but a non trvial percentage of typical generating capcity built each year. In ten years, annual installations should around nine gigawatts. That is still small compared to the installed base, but represents something like 40% of what is normally built in a year.

    In 15 years, you might see 66 GW of PV installed each year. That is much more capacity than we typically install in a year. So if that happens, it will be because we are replacing existing generating capacity with solar.

    In 20 years, at the current growth rate, 500 GW a year of cells would be installed. The only reason we would even build that many is if some relatively low cost way to store electricity for nighttime use has been found. All day time electricity would be produced by solar. One odd effect of this would be to switch pricing. Currently, when purchasing electricity with demand rates, electricity is much cheaper at night. In 20 years, electricity might be much cheaper during the day when the sun is shining brightly.

    Obviously, the growth rate is critical. It is worth noting that the growth rate has been _increasing_ recently.

    Fossil fuels will only get more expensive as we deplete them, while solar will only get cheaper as we figure out cheaper ways to make it. At some point, these curves cross and solar makes more sense. Every specific person or industry has their own cost curve so solar will make sense at different times for different people. It already makes sense for loads of people, and those numbers are increasing very very rapidly.

   

Re:Obama's "Manhattan Project" On Alternative Ener

[curmudgeon99]

The POINT is not the PRESENCE of the oil but, rather, the POLLUTION of the oil. When they find a batch of bad commodity--a freighter of moldy wheat, a herd of steers with Mad-Cow Disease, they don't decide to finish them off. They discard them. To complete the analogy (for those of you who were not paying attention), we recognize that petroleum is poisoning the earth. We need to get off this stuff as fast as possible. I want a president who is NOT beholding to the oil industry, like John McCain is. I want a president who is closer to understanding that oil is bad shit.

China may indeed drill for oil outside Cuba but, again, how do two wrongs make a right? We see that oil is not good for us, considering the air, groundwater, geopolitics, funding of oil wars, creation of excess plastics, ad infinitum.

(Slashdot is one of my news sources, Mr Steeped in Stereotypes.)

Fair question if I am a flack, but I am not. I am just irritated with the big lie we have been sold.

When I lived in Iowa City, I rode a bicycle to and from work daily. In Houston, I did have a car but I took the bus. In Salt Lake City, which is building light rail, I drove and rode a bicycle. It is so ridiculously easy to go long distances daily on a bike that I find it interesting you even make the argument.

As for your dire situation, having bought a house way the hell out in the Suburbs... Well, I believe there was a line in "Animal House" that sums up your situation in the suburbs. "You fucked up. Live with it." Aren't you Conservatives so hell bent on giving sway to the market? Well, here's your market: you bought a big house out in the middle of East Bum Fuck Egypt, and now that has turned out to be a stupid move... And, again, tell me why your mistake is my problem? Would you be on the edge of your chair to help me if I had made a mistake that cost me a lot of money? I don't think so.

Re:Obama's "Manhattan Project" On Alternative Ener

[kvezach]

Alright. Then the first step in providing a feasible alternative to oil and gasoline should be incentives to support nuclear reprocessing which handles 99% of what's currently considered waste. If you want hydrogen (to replace gasoline or to produce such artificially), do a bit more research on Generation IV reactors that can use the heat of the reaction to split (thermocrack) water into hydrogen and oxygen.

Solar should be solar thermal with a molten salt or similar storage system to even out the variations. Forget about wind, it can't give a good baseload anyway, and Betz' law provide a hard limit as to how much energy you can actually extract.

Re:Obama's "Manhattan Project" On Alternative Ener

[Anonymous Coward]

China is not drilling offshore Cuba. Please stop spreading this myth.

So the upshot of the article is that the Chinese/Cubans aren't currently drilling in the Gulf.

But the Chinese have partnered with the Cubans to drill in the Gulf in the future.

That's suppose to make me feel better?

Cadmium sulfide vaporware

[istartedi]

Yawwnnn... How much do you want to bet it will just be tied up in patents for the next 20 years and forgotten? I wish Slashdot had adopted my suggestion for a "cantbuyityet" tag. Vaporware is a bit unfair, since it actually exists. However, if you can't actually BUY it, or if only OEMs can buy it in bulk and it isn't in a product, then for the average slashdotter it might as well not even exist.

When you're doing a solar install, you look at cost per killowatt-hour. You figure out how long it will take to recoup your cost. Until a dramatic reduction in that figure comes along in a form that is READILY AVAILABLE to people doing solar installs, it's really just frustrating to read these stories.

Re:Cadmium sulfide vaporware

[Slugster]

This is quite what I was thinking.
A lot of companies have come and [basically] gone claiming to have made huge solar energy improvements, but they never managed to sell the stuff retail. Or the stuff they do offer costs tens of times what they said, and they blame it on "lack of scale".

So now we have two "remarkable" breakthroughs in solar energy (nanosolar and this) that we cannot BUY AND SEE OURSELVES, but that we can perhaps invest in?... Sounds like these companies are selling hype and not panels at all.

Is there any place independent that's keeping track of all these projects in Germany where this stuff is going? As I recall, Nanosolar's production is all going to Germany too.
~

Re:Obama's "Manhattan Project" On Alternative Ener

[LingNoi]

And the solution is not--duh--biking 30 miles, it's moving closer to your work and downsizing your stuff.

Wow, what a fucking retard.

Yes, lets all move to the city, that's a solution.

You also get extra points for ignoring all the harmful gasses that are released when making these solar panels.

Re:Obama's "Manhattan Project" On Alternative Ener

[smaddox]

The fallacy with your statement is that solar and wind aren't really competing with oil. They are competing with coal - something the US happens to have a lot of.

Biofuel and batteries are competing with oil. Hydrogen might be able to compete, but it has several disadvantages compared to petroleum.

Re:Obama's "Manhattan Project" On Alternative Ener

[Anonymous Coward]

Thats just silly, even the Exxon Valdez oil spill was over a relatively small area. And that will likely remain the worst spill in history as there are many safety mechanisms in place now to limit the damage an oil spill can cause when it does happen.

The idea that a spill would be large enough to affect multiple states seems a little crazy, how on earth can you get enough oil into one place to make that happen? Seeing as how their have been oil spills from offshore drilling in the past and they most certainly have NOT affected more than one state your assertion that they would "likely affect more than one state" just isnt true.

The Exxon Valdez oil spill still has not been cleaned up. Large areas are still devoid of life. Billions in dollars of damage were caused and the local economy is still devastated. This is normal operating procedure for the oil companies. Ignore the regulations and damn the environment is their credo.

You are completely naive if you believe the oil companies' propaganda or else you are an oil company shill.

Re:Obama's "Manhattan Project" On Alternative Ener

[Devout_IPUite]

For support I'll mention offshore drilling. This is something that Obama was against and either has moved to supporting expansion of drilling because he's genuinely trying to compromise or he thought it would look more appealing.

When the topic first came up Obama was very dismissive of offshore drilling as a solution noting the amount of time it would take and a quote from him along the lines of 'We can't drill our way out of this'. McCain on the other hand I believe can be quoted with 'We have to drill here and drill now'. This is an issue that they definitely differed on.

Also, one of the thoughts you present, that Republicans like alternative energy for economic and security reasons, can also be at least partially solved by additional domestic drilling. I think McCain is more likely to support additional drilling than Obama for two reasons: 1) He already has (offshore drilling). 2) Traditionally democrats are more anti-drilling than Republicans.

If it wasn't for the willingness to drill, they'd look very much the same on energy. But drilling at this point makes things worse. Increase supply means decreased price, which harms the economic advantage of alternatives and increases uses. Both bad options as far as I can tell.

Re:The old black question

[Anonymous Coward]

Nachos. No question. If you don't give nachos top priority, you aren't a real American.

Re:Obama's "Manhattan Project" On Alternative Ener

[curmudgeon99]

Water.

Re:Obama's "Manhattan Project" On Alternative Ener

[Anonymous Coward]

If you go to the IEEE spectrum article it mentions that First Solar is making 4 new factories and is producing modules as fast as it can. The reason why you can't buy them is because they can't even keep up with demand for the solar farm industry and are coming out with huge profit margins. Sounds like a real business to me.

I have no problem with nuclear power, but it would take just as much time to design and build all the plants needed as to build all the solar farms. which are at grid parity if you take into account that actual capital that goes into making power plants.

"Beware of the solar breakthrough"

[bavid]

The IEEE Spectrum editors had a blog post related to this article that the poster missed:

"To take another example, First Solar, a relatively young company based in Tempe, Arizona, has suddenly been getting a lot of attention with claims that it has figured out a way to make PV material at an installation cost of $1 per wattâ"though the global average for solar installations was in the range of $6 or $7 per watt last year. How plausible is that claim? Well, itâ(TM)s hard to know, because as a feature article appearing in this monthâ(TM)s IEEE Spectrum magazine points out, âoeThe company does not talk to reporters. Not at all.â"

The take-home point here? Be wary of companies that make extravagant claims without details. Especially if the best they can do now is $3/W.

Now I do like First Solar more than some of Slashdot's other favorite snake-oil salesmen (anyone remember EESTOR?), but I'm still suspicious.

Re:Obama's "Manhattan Project" On Alternative Ener

[actualhuman]

I'm not going to argue whether opening the coastal areas and Alaska to more drilling is a solution. Maybe so, maybe not. What does seem fairly obvious is that the people running the oil industry in the U.S. aren't really eager to invest in the drilling. If they had really wanted to drill in the off-limits areas, the executive and congressional bans would have been lifted shortly after 9-11. Remember those days? Bush in charge, a solid Republican rubber-stamp congress, and the country whipped into a fervor to do anything Bush said was necessary to fight terrorists. Why weren't the bans lifted then? Maybe, the folks who run the oil companies and set the Bush energy policies have no interest in investing heavily in a dying business model. They're making huge profits on existing investments. Most of the big oil companies have already begun devoting resources to the next generation of energy, including wind, solar and biofuels. In the past, OPEC could always kill off alternatives by dropping the price-per-barrel below the break-even point for the alts. Most likely, they will try again, but it looks like the big oil companies are seeing the writing on the wall, and they are moving on. So, why is Bush pressuring congress to lift it's bans on drilling now? Because it puts the Dems in a tight spot. He could have gotten the bans lifted almost any time from 2001 to 2006, but then his oil buddies would have had the pressure on them to spend big bucks to increase production and more big bucks to build refinery capacity. Why invest in technology that could easily be obsolete before production begins?

Re:Obama's "Manhattan Project" On Alternative Ener

[Graff]

One point: you desalinate BY electrolysis. Then a smaller volume of brine is sent back to the ocean, to dissipate. And any ideas are just that: ideas. I love how you are so quick to reject a possible, i.e. electromagnetic energy. Remember Tesla? We need to consider every idea.

Desalination by electrolysis is much less efficient than by evaporation or by reverse osmosis. It doesn't make any sense to use electrolysis to desalinate, use the electricity for the grid and desalinate by better methods.

As far as ionosphere power goes, I don't reject "a possible". I'm just pointing out that it's something not worth wasting research money on at this time. The smart thing to do is to spend research dollars on technologies that will bear fruit in a reasonable timeframe rather than going for pie-in-the-sky ideas that may take decades of development. The idea is that if you do your research in incremental steps you are very likely to incidentally develop technologies that will get you to the more out-there concepts. It's killing two birds with one stone and it's just smart research.

I do not think we should spend another government-funded or supported dime on finding new sources of oil. Can't you even see two feet in front of your face that oil is bad for this planet?

I agree, I don't think ANY business or research should be funded by the government. The government is bad enough handling the money it needs to run itself, it makes me cringe every time someone wants to hand the government more control over money.

As for oil, yes current uses of oil are definitely not good for the long-term. The problem is that right here and now we have to use oil. Yes, we should start right now with trying to replace our oil usage with something else but you can't snap your fingers and will all the petroleum-powered vehicles to turn into electric or hydrogen powered ones. Now if you want to be obstinate and blind and pretend that we can quit oil cold turkey then go ahead. Just don't expect those of us that live in the real world to agree with you.

Re:Obama's "Manhattan Project" On Alternative Ener

[curmudgeon99]

When you complain that I ignore your facts, it's because they are not germane. If the pollution of oil is the problem, questions of alleged supply or not pertinent to the problem, they are not important or germane. That's why I ignore them. So, you can resume ad hominem attacks to your heart's content, but it does not comprise an argument. Exxon Valdez was not a good thing to have happened. If there is more drilling, then there will be environmental damage. If not at the site, then the oil when it is burned is damaging, poisoning the environment. Nobody disputes that damage.

Instead, they try to justify continuing damage under some non-existent argument.

"Hell, show me the Greenpeace office in Russia and they are 2nd World"

Noting that I did live in St. Petersburg, Russia [1997] and that I speak Russian, I can say from my personal experience that nobody in Russia is happy about the pollution there. The people there understand how the dirty air and foul water is killing them. They see the cancer clusters and early mortalities.

When you simply agreed that oil is not a long term solution, you, lost your argument and the rest was fluff. Of course, the private oil industry will continue to claw and scrape every last drop of oil out of the earth. Of course, they will undoubtedly get better at it. Let the private

companies explore all they want--how could we stop them from doing it? You're missing the emphasis of my entire point which is: Focus on new supplies. Remove tax breaks of any kind, anywhere for the oil-exploration industry. Let it entirely ride on its own merits. If any oil-industry pollution is found, clean it up and send them a bill. That's the only thing they understand.

If we have energy problems now, then all of you who choose to have a house in the suburbs, a car that you can drive around for fun, deserve to pay out the ass for gas. You still get off cheaply. We all pay taxes to clean up all the Superfund sites that are petrochemical related.

When you, again, resort to the irrelevant point of the oil supply, I have no alternative but to roll my eyes and wonder why you can't see beyond that red herring. Supply is not the point. Pollution is. Whether or not there is an infinite supply of oil is not the point. We need to get on something that is renewable. Those of you who bought McMansions out in the suburbs are, in a word, fucked.

No objection to a solar powered solar panel plant.

[Firethorn]

Actually, the biggest portion of glass manufacturing is, of course, heat. You wouldn't want to use 10% efficient cells to produce electricity that goes directly to an electric resistance element to make that heat.

Instead, you'd want to build a solar furnace - using mirrors and lenses and such you can get 90% efficiency, and using panels even cheaper than this.

The trick would be the substantial start-up time in the mornings. Due to the heat levels involved, you'd be wasting a lot of energy each day heating the equipment up again.

So either you have to find a solution for this, or use natural gas or whatever during the night to keep production up. This isn't bad as long as you still get more energy out of the resultant panels, etc...

Re:Obama's "Manhattan Project" On Alternative Ener

[curmudgeon99]

The subway goes everywhere. You have complete freedom. After I have paid my $81.00 for the month, I can go anywhere in New York City, including Manhattan, the Bronx, Queens, Brooklyn and Staten Island. If I want to pay a few dollars, I can hop on trains to anwhere along the Eastern Seaboard. Last Christmas, I took a train to Philadelphia. It was easy on the environment.

Re:Obama's "Manhattan Project" On Alternative Ener

[curmudgeon99]

Marvelous comments. This contained some science I hadn't heard about, thermocracking of water instead of electrolysis. I'm all for it. Keep the ideas coming. Build anything even possible. Do POCs for each and test like crazy. As long as the waste stream of any option is considered, I'm all for it.

Re:Obama's "Manhattan Project" On Alternative Ener

[curmudgeon99]

Downsizing is the obvious solution, dude. Having already done that, I can say it's painless. You really need all that stuff? You real proud of having spent your money on that bedroom set? Your garage full of old stuff you bought and now question what the hell you were doing? You with an HD TV, you tickled pink about all those old TVs laying around? That's your "stuff"?

PV cells are still too inefficient

[dontmakemethink]

Photo-voltaic solar panels are only 15-18% efficient, and that's only under direct sunlight. If they do not change position to face the sun, then they're less than 10% efficient.

Within 2 years, 1500W solar-thermal generators approx 6' in diameter with 60% efficiency and tracking systems will be on the market for under $1000. Every solar panel owner is going to smack their forehead and emit a collective "d'oh!"

Re:PV cells are still too inefficient

[Ant P.]

Is "2 years" the solar equivalent of fusion's "25 years"?

Re:PV cells are still too inefficient

[deroby]

I wouldn't be all that certain about that. If I'd be placing PV cells on otherwise unoccupied land, then yes, solar-thermal comes out as a better investment, but I VERY MUCH doubt that those systems will be even close to the 'ease of use' that PV cells have today. So to speak you can simply bolt them onto your roof and they just work.
Putting even the most modest form of this : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:SolarStirlingEngine.jpg on top of my roof would require quite a bit of extra strengthening and engineering, let alone maintenance.
Solar-thermal may be quite more efficient, but that does not mean it will replace PV any time soon .. all IMHO off course.

Re:Obama's "Manhattan Project" On Alternative Ener

[curmudgeon99]

Just consider the entire waste stream of every solution. That's all. Right now, oil exploration and oil-company land acquisition is heavily tax subsidized. Tell them they need to pay to remove the exact amount of carbon they release, or don't emit any carbon.

The current generation and the ones that came before have been forwarding the bill for our pollution to our children and grandchildren. Well, the bills are coming do to us. Each and every person who defends the status quo wants to continue forwarding that bill to their own grandchildren.

financing solar

[falconwolf]

Suppose you're having a new house built: if you could install a ten or fifteen kilowatt solar plant and inverter for ten grand, you might figure it's worth it to borrow a little more money from the bank.

More and more mortgage companies are financing solar energy systems. Some allow borrowers to borrow more because of such systems. With an alternative energy system installed living costs are reduced so they are willing to lend a higher percent of the what the borrower's income would suggest.

Of course the mortgage crisis does have a negative impact, it has hurt solar businesses.

Falcon

Re:Obama's "Manhattan Project" On Alternative Ener

[curmudgeon99]

For decades we have complacently consumed oil and it's now we're having to play catch up. We need to really get serious about providing alternatives. And likely it will be 50 alternatives but at least we will know that we have accounted for the entire waste stream.

I am not wedded to any one technology. Glad to hear they have tested the alternatives and figured out better approaches.

You say you're against any government funding of research? An easy position to take in the abstract. So, you're against the Space Program, NASA, Student Loans, Mortgage Interest Deductions, any public welfare spending. If you are advocating something, it's better to give it a real test rather than allowing a ridiculous idea to linger in the sunlight of pseudo acceptability. You don't want Cancer Research to be funded. You don't want to help the poor. You should be against any and every feature of the tax code rather than a straight percentage. Each of these government programs--including the EPA and the US Park Service--have no business being in existence according to your viewpoint. ["I don't think ANY business or research should be funded by the government."]

I am in no way saying that we can go cold turkey on oil. No, we just need to stop giving a single advantage in the tax code or the legal system to anything about oil. Let oil fend for itself, including for pollution remediation, then we'll really see how "valuable" petroleum is. Surely, there would be disruption, but the reality is it's warranted. People should not continue to kill off this planet as fast as they can. It's time to step in and say "enough".

Re:Obama's "Manhattan Project" On Alternative Ener

[LeafOnTheWind]

Though Nuclear does have the benefit of no greenhouse gases, it still has the same fundamental problem that oil does: it's business model is predicated on NOT dealing with its wastes! We STILL doe not have a solution to the incredibly toxic wastes we've been generating for decades. The only solution is to hide the waste. You think this is a viable alternative?

Yes.

Solar and wind power cannot provide base energy requirements for the vast majority of the nation. We could continue harvesting power from fission reactors using breeder reactors and refinement for thousands of years with no adverse affect on the environment. The difference between combustion reactions and nuclear is that the waste from nuclear is containable.

subsidies from private industry

[raygundan]

The biggest source of solar subsidy for homeowners in Arizona is the power companies themselves. They'll pay for roughly half of your installation. My guess is that this is just smart infrastructure investment for them-- you foot half the cost and handle the maintenance, but they know the panels aren't moving once they're installed.

Re:subsidies from private industry

[Dare nMc]

solar subsidy for homeowners in Arizona is the power companies themselves.

it should be added, it is because of a requirement in state law that they collect a "renewable energy" fee, and use that to invest in these resources. They will only give rebates to owners with grid tie systems with no batteries.

Re:Obama's "Manhattan Project" On Alternative Ener

[curmudgeon99]

Nukes are a transitional solution. They are better than oil, but not by much. I disagree with your supposition that we cannot make alternatives work. We have no choice but to increase our renewables and reduce our individual footprints.

Pollyanna economics, yet again

[Ancient_Hacker]

Nothing in the history of the Universe has ever sold for much less than the competition. It matters not one whit whether by some measure the cells cost 1/10th as much to manufacture. Every time there's been some breakthrough product that costs very little to make, there's a big flash and mobs of managers, QA people, ad agencies, consultants, beaurocrats, distributors, jobbers, salespersons, accountants, bookkeepers, supervisors, warehouses, trucks, and installers all materialize, and wadda you know, the product ends up costing jut a teensy bit less than the competition.

Re:Pollyanna economics, yet again

[Dutchmang]

That's a troll. There are a zillion examples of game-changing ideas, in technology, transportation, manufacturing, farming.... Ultimately the benefits flow through as lower costs-per-unit, adopted by larger populations of people.

I'm not saying this is one of them, though I damn well hope one of these redundant stories turns out to be so. Each press release seems to scream a little louder than the previous, and come to think of it that's probably closer to a function of the factors you argue as reasons a breakthrough's benefits won't flow through to consumers.

But a range of approaches seems the best way to find that breakthrough, so I for one am content to put up with this, and even get a little thrill every time one of these screeching articles appears. We need to figure out a way out of the carbon fuel problem. I say, more power to all of 'em.

Re:Pollyanna economics, yet again

[arrowrod]

Yeah, like electricity. The ice box was cheap, only an ice cube a day. Delivered by a horse drawn wagon, on the back of a man. Your nuts.

Little startup??

[snilloc]

At what point is a publicly traded 20 billion dollar market cap company no longer a "little startup"? http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=fslr

Re:Obama's "Manhattan Project" On Alternative Ener

[Anonymous Coward]

>You're St. Augustine saying "God, make me chase--but not yet, not yet!"

The word you were looking for is "chaste", not "chase".

HTH. HAND.

Re:No objection to a solar powered solar panel pla

[rossifer]

The trick would be the substantial start-up time in the mornings. Due to the heat levels involved, you'd be wasting a lot of energy each day heating the equipment up again.

What you need is a thermal storage system and good insulation of your hot gear. Since they're talking about using molten salt as well as other substances like hard pitch (incredibly high boiling point) as thermal storage to allow solar power plants to produce power over 24 hours, I'd say the solution to the problem is at hand.

And you're 100% correct that you should keep the solar power in thermal form. Thermal solar is much lower cost and you don't have the transformation losses that you mentioned. All you need is glass with aluminum/glass coatings for the mirrors along with an efficient thermal transfer/storage system and you're off to the races.

Mojave Desert

[falconwolf]

Forbes mentions that Mojave Desert real estate is becoming more valuable because many companies want to build solar facilities there.

It's not just solar farms that are sprouting up in the Mojave, wind farms are as well. Actually there's one wind farm that virtually sat there silent back when CA had those rolling blackouts because the transmission capability wasn't there.

Falcon

Re:Mojave Desert

[arminw]

....because the transmission capability wasn't there.....

That fact is, it has and will continue to put a crimp into the idea of building large scale solar power plants in far away places. Building a major high voltage transmission line involves dealing with hundreds or even thousands of property owners. Most people I know will resist by every means available to them the idea of a big ugly, possibly dangerous line crossing their land.

Solar power produced by utility sized power stations will only be built in places that already have a suitable transmission line. When solar panels and to a lesser extent, batteries become cheap enough, most solar power will be generated right where it is used, rather than being sent down a lossy transmission line for hundreds of miles.

Re:Obama's "Manhattan Project" On Alternative Ener

[Pengo]

Bravo, well put. :)

Re:Obama's "Manhattan Project" On Alternative Ener

[jmorris42]

> If the pollution of oil is the problem, questions of alleged supply
> or not pertinent to the problem, they are not important or germane.

Yet you devote half of your original post to those other arguments, good to have my assertion you were just posing as a rational actor confirmed.

The problem, as I stated, is that oil is the NOW. And right NOW we have a limited set of choices:

1. Adopt your proposed reduced lifestyle of a green monastic order. Not going to happen. Argue all you will but people won't do it, and if Obambi tries to force people into it he will be a one term wonder.

2. Increase supplies of oil in the 1-5 year time horizon to keep our 1st world economy operating. As I asserted, only a 1st world economy has the spare resources to CARE about things like environmentalism.

3. A miracle occurs and somebody produces a new form of energy that can be quickly adapted to power every aspect of our world currently powered by fossil fuels. Personally I don't believe boxing ourselves into a corner where only a miracle can save us is sound policy. Obviously you do, thus faith based policy.

> Noting that I did live in St. Petersburg, Russia [1997] and that
> I speak Russian...

But apparently unaware that recent polling shows Russia one of the countries that answered most favorably to the question of whether they thought their country was going well. They might notice the pollution and care on some level, but they won't DO anything about it until more important goals are met, like becoming a 1st World economy.

And I can promise you that if you idiots get control of the US economy and drive us into 2nd World status the ONLY thing American voters will care about is regaining our 'lost glory'... exactly like those Russians, and screw everything else like the environment. So ask yourself, is that the future you want? Choose carefully and remember that the road to Hell is paved with good intentions.

You have made it half way to the Truth. We can argue about when we will hit Peak Oil, nobody disputes the evident truth that we will hit it. So replacing oil isn't a question of whether, but one of what and when. So just suck it up and let the marketplace sort this out, secure in the knowledge that since it must, it will. The free market, unlike government, has yet to fail when given a challenge.

Oil is dirty, but so was coal before it and wood before that. Man is still crawling up from darkness and folks like yourself need to stop focusing on the negative and see the glass as half full once in awhile. And we will even backslide from time to time. We once though slavery was a given and evolved beyond it only to backslide into various *isms in the 20th Century that enslaved people more utterly than anything previous, only to correct course yet again and move upwards in a few short generations.

Have a little hope dude. Only instead of investing your Hope in one rather pathetic dude, have some hope in humanity in general. We screw up, but we do eventually learn.

It's a trap!

[Krishnoid]

Nachos will doom us all to perpetual oil dependency!

Re:Obama's "Manhattan Project" On Alternative Ener

[actualhuman]

Has China shown a willingness to do whatever it takes to become a world economic power. Yes. They have shown the kind of take-no-prisoners attitude we have always admired in our entrepreneurs.

One other thing they have shown is that they do not like having to depend on foreign countries for anything important. That includes energy. I would be shocked if they don't already have their own Manhattan Project for energy, and I suspect it is very well funded. They have a system that can make this happen.

If China or India does find a way to produce the energy they need without having to ship money out of the country, they will have a tremendous economic advantage over countries that still have business models tied to old money business models.

Of course, we would never try to steal useful technology from them. That would be wrong.

Re:No objection to a solar powered solar panel pla

[Firethorn]

True, I just figure that creating a solar furnace that meets 70% of your daily needs, plus some sort of alternative heat source would help ensure the best performance at lowest cost.

By having a backup, you don't have the cost of the thermal storage, plus the capability to operate even in less than ideal circumstances. Like a week of heavy cloud cover, for example.

Re:Obama's "Manhattan Project" On Alternative Ener

[financialguy]

Without getting into the political dimensions of your comments, the simple fact is that to live like a Manhattanite you have to live in Manhattan. It's prohibitively expensive for many to live in Manhattan, and it's even more prohibitively expensive to simply build another. It has to happen on its own, for economic reasons which may yet come to pass.

But as long as there is enough country to spread out in and it's the least bit economically feasible, a lot of people will choose to do so simply because that's the lifestyle they prefer. There are lots of good reasons to live in Manhattan, just as there are lots of good reasons to live in the suburbs.

Recycling

[copponex]

If you start out within the parameters of sustainability, it does make a difference. Is it impossible to recycle the water used in these processes? It doesn't have to be potable - my severely uneducated guess is that it's used for thermal cooling and aiding in cleaning or chemical processes. If it's heated and rises as steam, it can be used as a heat source while it's condensed back into water. If it's used for cutting or forming, it can be recycled after recovering useful bits of material.

You'd still have to ship some water but it may be far less than what the plant uses on a daily basis once you "fill it up" the first time. The other benefit of being in the desert is you have a major heat source for distillation if the process requires clean h2o.

Re:Recycling

[Anonymous Coward]

If you start out within the parameters of sustainability, it does make a difference. Is it impossible to recycle the water used in these processes? It doesn't have to be potable - my severely uneducated guess is that it's used for thermal cooling and aiding in cleaning or chemical processes. If it's heated and rises as steam, it can be used as a heat source while it's condensed back into water. If it's used for cutting or forming, it can be recycled after recovering useful bits of material.

My experience in clean room processing is that most of the water used needs to be way better then potable.

Cooling water usually is recycled. Run it somewhere to cool (usually a cooling tower, but that may not work in the desert) and re-use it again. Cooling water is always contained in something, and never sees the product, so no one really cares what is in it. On the other hand, if you want to dump it, then you need to start to worry about what sorts of strange contaminates it may have picked up.

Any water exposed to a clean room should be distilled. If you have salt in your water, you'll end up with salt in the air, and suddenly your clean room isn't so clean. Idealy you'd use deionized water, but in my experience most places don't.

If the water is going to touch your product, then it should be deionized. It doesn't take much to ruin a part that demands high purity. I've had high purity ceramic samples ruined by contaminaton that was so slight it couldn't be measured in the bulk part.

You'd still have to ship some water but it may be far less than what the plant uses on a daily basis once you "fill it up" the first time. The other benefit of being in the desert is you have a major heat source for distillation if the process requires clean h2o.

I've always been told that distilling that way tends to be a pain. The ideal way to distill water isn't to boil off all the water and then deal with all sorts of solid crap you have left behind, it is to boil off some of the water, and then dump the brine as waste. In other words, the ideal distilling process would end up duming most of the water put into it.

Nice article, but it sort of dismissed a-Si tech.

[ahfoo]

The author did mention amorphous silicon almost in passing, but seemed a bit dismissive so there was clearly a bit of bias in the report.

The place where the action is happening on all the solar isn't in the US, but in Asia. The vast majority of the thin-film players are in China, Taiwan, Korea and Japan and this is no mystery because the turn-key factory provider (which happens to be a european defense conglomorate named Oerlikon that created a thin film division based off a version of Stanley Ovshinsky's technology that was put together through the purchase of a series of companies including Excimer Lasers) primarily pitches these factories at LCD module makers as a side businesss. Even DVD producers are seen as good matches so these are the kinds of businesses that were already traditionally in Asia.

That's why I think amorphous silicon is a much bigger story than what this article seemed to suggest.

But I would agree with the author that there is no real fundamental reason why conventional solar panels are expensive other than the lack of polysilicon supply. Until just the last few years there literally was no such thing as a dedicated polysilicon supply explicitly produced for solar modules. All the silicon that went into solar was sourced from the identical ingots used for semiconductors and solar applications were extremely pricey becaue solar was a second-rate player in an already very expensive sellers market. That has changed dramatically with much talk of a polysilicon bubble forming due to massive production outlays particularly in Mainland China.

We should see panel prices in the two dollar-a-watt range available on the web in the not-too-distant future. It's frustrating to think that we could have been at this point thirty years ago if we had used major government subsidies to seed a solar polysilicon supply. We were damn close in the seventies but then . . . well, I guess we all know what happened to the roof of the White House in 1986.

It is not unanswerable at all

[falconwolf]

the cost of the product instantly answers its energy requirements.

I agree it's answerable but the cost has nothing to do it's energy requirements. Much more goes into the cost than just energy.

The fact that most solar solutions are still not attractive from a cost-benefit standpoint suggests that their energy efficiency is still marginal.

Not attractive compared to what? Oil? How many wars are fought over oil? Coal? How many mountains have to be leveled, and how many miner's lives, does it take to provide the coal? With both coal and oil, how many will have to pay for Global Warming?

Falcon

Re:It is not unanswerable at all

[Bombula]

Much more goes into the cost than just energy.

If it required more energy to produce than ever came out of it, it could not possibly be cost-effective, regardless of any other costs - even if all other production costs were zero. Therefore, by logical deduction any solar panel that is economically cost-effective must also be net-energy positive, so as long as it makes economic sense it will automatically make technological sense too.

Not attractive compared to what?

I only meant attractive in an economic sense. Sadly, that is still the only sense that really matters. Until the dollars make sense, no other factors will trump consumers' decisions to adopt this and other green technologies. That is why it is so critical to make these new technologies economically viable.

Re:It is not unanswerable at all

[falconwolf]

by logical deduction any solar panel that is economically cost-effective must also be net-energy positive, so as long as it makes economic sense it will automatically make technological sense too.

While true, my point was that cost wasn't dependent on energy input alone. Something may be energy positive but can still cost too much. So relying on cost as an indicator won't help in determining some thing's efficiency.

I only meant attractive in an economic sense.

The problem with using economic sense, as it's used now, doesn't really tell you whether something is attractive. Subsidies distort markets, as do external costs those costs producers and users pass on to others. For instance if burning fossil and releasing greenhouse gases causes Global Warming when sea levels rise it's not those who produce or use the energy produced that pay, it's those who's home get flooded that do. As does the farmers who's land becomes a desert. Currently economics does not take these into consideration. Only when, and if, producers and users have to pay those costs can it be determined if an alternative energy source is economically attractive.

Falcon

What's with this

[falconwolf]

"the Government will save us attitude?" No, subsidies aren't what we need; what we need is for capitalism to work.

I agree with the sentiments but as long as power generation is subsidized then solar, wind, and other alternative energy sources should be as well. Bush, and McCain want to give the nuclear power industry massive subsidies. We've gone to war over oil.

Falcon

Re:What's with this

[sumdumass]

Well, what about coal. You managed to talk trash like you know something about electric generation but you failed to mention how coal is somehow subsidized. You even managed to insert Bush and McCain in there. I'm waiting for the Obama will save us all line. I actually think it is funny how people claim the army protects this, Bush that McCain this and what it boils down to is My poor little pet projects aren't competitive enough to compete.

The bottom line is that prices are the way they are based on a history that stretches far beyond your age. If someone wants to compete with energy, they have to compete with anything that is done to that energy or to get it or to manipulate it. Nothing unfair is going on here. Wind and solar have the advantage of no fuel costs which more then compensate for any oil subsidies. I'm seriously amazed at arguments like yours that effectivly say raise the costs of X so Y can compete. It is contrary to our entire system of lowering the cost of Y to compete with X.

Re:What's with this

[falconwolf]

You managed to talk trash like you know something about electric generation but you failed to mention how coal is somehow subsidized. You even managed to insert Bush and McCain in there.

Tax breaks are given for coal mining. And it's not just some environmental website saying that. Even the CATO Institute, a Libertarian think tank, says coal is subsidized. Bush has proposed subsidizing clean coal as well as nuclear power. McCain has pledged to provide $2billion for clean-coal.

I'm waiting for the Obama will save us all line. I actually think it is funny how people claim the army protects this

I find it funny, actually stupid, when people "ass"ume I support Obama. In fact as of now I'm voting for the Libertarian candidate Bob Barr and during the last presidential election I supported Michael Badnarik. Actually since 1988 when Ron Paul ran for president as a Libertarian Party candidate I voted for the LP candidate except in 2000. As far as I'm concerned both Democrats and Republicans are half right and half wrong. Democrats what to control businesses whereas Republicans want to control people's lives, especially Christian Conservatives. And both are parties to the War on Drugs.

The bottom line is that prices are the way they are based on a history that stretches far beyond your age.

And how do you know how old I am? You can read minds? I doubt it as you "ass"umed I supported Obama.

Nothing unfair is going on here.

It is unfair when you have to compeat with an industry that receives government subsidies but you don't, or receive more than you do. I won't go over the rest because you're so good at reading minds to think I don't support a free market.

Falcon

Re:What's with this

[sumdumass]

Tax breaks are given for coal mining [pirg.org]. And it's not just some environmental website saying that. Even the CATO Institute, a Libertarian think tank, says coal is subsidized [cato.org]. Bush has proposed subsidizing clean coal [cato-at-liberty.org] as well as nuclear power. McCain [cato-at-liberty.org] has pledged to provide $2billion for clean-coal [timeswv.com].

Actually, that comment about not listing coal was a bit tongue in cheek. You see, without the subsidies, the energy in all the markets from making the panels to getting the raw materials as well as delivering them to the end user or final owner is going to cost more proportionate to the subsidies. A majority of the costs of making the panels right now is in energy use of some form. Labor would be next most likely, then supplies or raw material. Without the subsidies, everything would cost more including the labor that need to pay for energy too. So without them, there would be a solar industry that just costs more and still cannot compete.

I find it funny, actually stupid, when people "ass"ume I support Obama. In fact as of now I'm voting for the Libertarian candidate Bob Barr and during the last presidential election I supported Michael Badnarik. Actually since 1988 when Ron Paul ran for president as a Libertarian Party candidate I voted for the LP candidate except in 2000. As far as I'm concerned both Democrats and Republicans are half right and half wrong. Democrats what to control businesses whereas Republicans want to control people's lives, especially Christian Conservatives. And both are parties to the War on Drugs.

I didn't claim you were an Obama supporter, I was waiting for the line though, this entire vacuum ideology is typical of Obama fans. "If energy costs more, these alternative energy ideas that uses large amounts of traditional energy in manufacturing would cost less, be more cost effective and be more availible", which is simply not true.

And how do you know how old I am? You can read minds? I doubt it as you "ass"umed I supported Obama.

I don't have to read minds, all I have to do is pay attention to previous conversations and threads we were part of. Do you actually think no one takes anything away from what you post? I don't know your exact age, but I know your about 10 years younger then me.

It is unfair when you have to compeat with an industry that receives government subsidies but you don't, or receive more than you do. I won't go over the rest because you're so good at reading minds to think I don't support a free market.

Lol.. Nope. your missing a few real bits of information here. First of all, if energy costs what it does today because of all the subsidies, then without the subsidies, the alternative energy would cost that much more. Lets say that on average, 30% of all energy costs to the consumer is subsidized by the government in some way shape or form. Now, removing all of that would mean that raw glass this company uses would costs more, the chemicals they use would costs more and it isn't just a single increase either, they would costs more in manufacturing or mining them as well as transporting them to the factory. Now, you need a lot of energy to heat glass to a pliable state and to push it through machines that shape it and then temper it. So energy as in electricity which is most commonly the cheapest route but natural gas can be instrumental there too, is going to cost more. And it will costs more not just because of the production of it, but because mining the metals the wire transporting it is made of will cost more as well as the insulation that goes over the wires. Natural gas has the same issues with pipes and all. Now because everything is more expensive due to a 30% increase in end user energy costs, wages will have to be higher because people want to be able to power their gadgets

Re:What's with this

[falconwolf]

I don't know your exact age, but I know your about 10 years younger then me.

How do you know you are 10 years older than I am if you do not know my age? Are you making an ass of yourself again by assuming what my age is?

if energy costs what it does today because of all the subsidies, then without the subsidies, the alternative energy would cost that much more.

This and the following can qat least partially dealt with with increased efficiency. As you say cheap energy has made things cheap however with higher prices for energy manufact5uring and transportation will become more efficient. Back in the 1970s US auto makers said more fuel efficient couldn't be made, but during the fake oil embargo Japanese auto makers ate their lunch. Now while Detroit struggles Honda, Toyota, and other Japanese, as well as European auto makers are opening factories in the US. Yea, part of it is because local and state governments give them tax breaks and other subsidies I oppose to them, but they also build more efficient vehicles. The book "Natural Capitalism", which a writer for the "Economist" said was "Brimming with examples and anecdote, Natural Capitalism will exasperate some and excite others--but leave every reader with the hope that the old battle between business and the environment can reach a peaceful and constructive conclusion" is filled with examples and case studies of how businesses have been able to cut resources used whether energy or raw materials and cut their costs at the same tyme. Simply with the end of cheap energy we need to improve efficiency.

Falcon

Re:What's with this

[sumdumass]

How do you know you are 10 years older than I am if you do not know my age? Are you making an ass of yourself again by assuming what my age is?

Actually, the term is you and me. Ass-u-me is the word and the joke has been around a lot longer then you. As for you age, I already told you, we have discussed this in the past and at least I paid attention. Even if I forgot the actual age difference.

This and the following can qat least partially dealt with with increased efficiency. As you say cheap energy has made things cheap however with higher prices for energy manufact5uring and transportation will become more efficient.

How much more efficient can they get? Really, I mean it isn't like companies selling energy for a profit are sitting in a room agreeing to keep things inefficient and limiting their profit potential just so they can charge more. In fact, traditional energy production has gone through vigorous examinations and they are about as efficient as they can be without adding extra costs that negate the saving from efficiency. I'm not sure what you think would automagically be different if subsidies didn't exist. But it surely wouldn't be just different in the alternative energy markets without being different in traditional markets.

Back in the 1970s US auto makers said more fuel efficient couldn't be made, but during the fake oil embargo Japanese auto makers ate their lunch. Now while Detroit struggles Honda, Toyota, and other Japanese, as well as European auto makers are opening factories in the US.

lol.. Fake embargo. Tell me, what was fake about it? Detroit accurately said that they couldn't produce the same care any more efficient. And they were right, they had to produce smaller and lighter cars to get more efficiency. Something that Toyota and Datson were already doing. The Japanese and other foreign auto makers opens plants in the US not because it was cheaper or more successful but because the Unions had a very compelling campaign to buy American with tag lines like "every foreign car you buy puts 37 US auto workers out of a job. That caused a stagnation in sales of imports and the Japanese auto makers countered with opening plants just to say buy our cars and keep Americans working. It really has nothing to do with their efficiency. I have one of those cramped Japanese cars BTW, a Toyota, and I have issues getting in and out of it, no head room compared to my truck but look, Toyota has started making the bigger and inefficient SUVs and full size trucks. Imagine that, a turn around from your line of reasoning you could say.

Yea, part of it is because local and state governments give them tax breaks and other subsidies I oppose to them, but they also build more efficient vehicles.

And they also build less efficient vehicles. Actually, GM right now has the most fuel efficient vehicle on the market. And all the auto makers are competitive in their efficiency for the class of the vehicle. Are you hanging on to 1970's numbers or something? You obviously aren't using recent data or data from this century.

The book "Natural Capitalism", which a writer for the "Economist" said was "Brimming with examples and anecdote, Natural Capitalism will exasperate some and excite others--but leave every reader with the hope that the old battle between business and the environment can reach a peaceful and constructive conclusion" is filled with examples and case studies of how businesses have been able to cut resources used whether energy or raw materials and cut their costs at the same tyme. Simply with the end of cheap energy we need to improve efficiency.

That's all nice and all, but it really has nothing to do with what I said. I have never argued that business and the environment can't get along. I think there are some arbitrary and pointles

Re:What's with this

[falconwolf]

Actually, the term is you and me. Ass-u-me is the word and the joke has been around a lot longer then you. As for you age, I already told you, we have discussed this in the past and at least I paid attention. Even if I forgot the actual age difference.

I specifically used "ass" because I think that's what you are by saying you know me and how old I am. While I admit I don't recall stating how old I am I am pretty sure I in fact have not stated that. If you can provide proof I did then I will apologize.

Fake embargo. Tell me, what was fake about it?

Okay, perhaps that was too strong a word, "fake". However even though OPEC stopped shipping oil to countries that supported Israel in the Yom Kipper War of 1973 it would not have been so bad in the US except for what the Republican President, Nixon, did. "President Nixon, as part of his ill-fated price control program, had slapped controls on oil in March 1973."

Detroit accurately said that they couldn't produce the same care any more efficient.

Who said Detroit had to keep building the same cars? Who said they couldn't build more efficient cars?

I have one of those cramped Japanese cars BTW, a Toyota, and I have issues getting in and out of it, no head room compared to my truck

I had two Japanese trucks, Mazdas, and I had no problem with either one. Well I did with the first one but that was my own fault. While working on one of the brakes, the truck slipped off the jack and pinned my hand to the ground. Otherwise I had no problems working on either. I should have used blocks to keep the wheels from moving. Actually it was more of a hassle when I rebuilt the engine in my Monte Carlo, a Detroit car. The second one I loved and was sorry to get rid of it, I moved across the country so I sold it. Now I own another American car, a Saturn, and I won't even change the oil on my own, when I did just that with every other vehicle I owned including the Japanese trucks.

GM right now has the most fuel efficient vehicle on the market.

Where is GM's hybrid or EV car? Are you saying GM's vehicle is more efficient? Is it available to buy now? And if so what model is it? Meanwhile Toyota can't build it's hybrid fast enough to fill the orders.

That's all nice and all, but it really has nothing to do with what I said.

Actually it applies directly to what you said. You say things would be more expensive if energy wasn't subsidized so I pointed out energy efficiency can be improved. I even included what you said, here it is again: if energy costs what it does today because of all the subsidies, then without the subsidies, the alternative energy would cost that much more. By subsidizing cheap energy, energy efficiency was discouraged. If businesses and people had to pay the full price for the energy they use they would be more efficient.

I think there are some arbitrary and pointless regulations on the books designed to raise the bar for entry specifically for competitors intending to compete with existing industries.

Actually I agree, many regulations are created to block competition. However subsides also block competition when it gives one industry an advantage over another. And that's both an outright handout of money, and reduced costs such as royalties. I bet the government isn't paid as much in royalties for offshore drilling as a person does for allowing drilling on their own land. With as big a budget deficit as the US has those royalties would surely help.

Then there is the entire manufactured pollution consistent with the global warming scams were all the sudden something harmless is now a pollutant.

Global Warming scam? Now I will ask you if you think the 1000s of scientists who say it is real are running a scam? Something harmless as well? Is water harmless? A person can't drown in water? Ask NASCAR drivers if CO2 is harmles

Re:Obama's "Manhattan Project" On Alternative Ener

[Anonymous Coward]

you propose farmers pay out the ass for their stuff, which then makes food more expensive, and then you will likely complain that food prices are causing too much inflation and the poor are suffering because they cant afford to eat. Some already complain about that. Raising fees on the very things that farmers require to get the food in a condition where you can eat it does not seem like a suitable answer.

Sometimes the thing you hate is also the thing you rely on. And your comment about letting the market decide, when the government sets taxes and tariffs that is not the market deciding that is the government. Your example is *not* one where the market has much say.

Oh and just in case I wasnt clear, farmers *need* vehicles, they need to mend fences, they need to plow and till fields, they need to be able to do a lot of things that currently require petroleum based fuels because nothing else offers the same torque. The same goes with the trucks that transport the stuff to market, they are diesel because it not only gives better mileage but also better torque so they can haul the loads of food (and other products) that are sold each day to provide jobs for many people, as well as stuff to eat when they get hungry.

If you want 0 cars in NYC I am fine with that, it will be fewer people to feed and the rest of us can see a discount on our food prices. Somehow I dont think you envisioned signing a death warrant for everyone and no path does not take pallets of food as cargo, even if they did how would it get to the markets once there (there is the amtrak tracks that have been there for a decade or so).

bonus: my captcha was dumbbell

Re:Obama's "Manhattan Project" On Alternative Ener

[camg188]

Most of America has a much lower population density than your neighborhood, making bicycles and public transportation much less practical.

Re:No objection to a solar powered solar panel pla

[The Bender]

Glass production lines don't "start up in the morning". They run 24x7, because of the huge amount of thermal energy in the system. If they cool down, it's a big deal. Everything solidifies and likely can't get started again. It's the equivalent of warming up a superconducting magnet. Float glass production lines are built for a particular lifetime. When that's up, they allow it to cool and trash the whole plant.

Re:Obama's "Manhattan Project" On Alternative Ener

[falconwolf]

First of all, thirteen cents of every dollar you spend on gasoline goes directly to the Federal Government. That is hardly aiding the petroleum industry.

Spending billions of dollars a day in a war on a country that didn't attack us, but has vast oil reserves is a subsidy.

Second, getting the Federal Government involved in encouraging commuting and public transportation? The results might be as good as our public education system!

It depends of how government does it. Where I live private companies operate buses not the government.

It's not the Federal Government's job (assuming you adhere to the Constitution, of course) to use force to make people use a certain kind of energy.

But that's exactly what happens when government gives hugh subsidies to the coal, oil, and nuclear power industries, as well as large agribusinesses.

Falcon

Re:Obama's "Manhattan Project" On Alternative Ener

[curmudgeon99]

I must disagree. You can bike, you can ride a moped. You can move closer. Any other argument gives too much credence to your desire to avoid inconvenience.

Re:Obama's "Manhattan Project" On Alternative Ener

[Jorophose]

You know oil is bad

No, oil is not bad. It is a versatile, high-energy-density fuel, incredibly easy to find, and organic. What are fossil fuels? Dead animals. If that's not organic I don't know what is.

Now, what's bad about burning fuels like these? Well, if at the same time the BRIC nations everybody says are growing greatly keep tossing out CO2 AND cut down their trees, well, then you've got a problem. Had they planned smartly we wouldn't be having this problem.

And so what if the oceans are acidic? There's a reason Australia has massive lime reserves, they need to be dumped back into the ocean to finish the equation, to neutralise the water's pH level.

If we were to stop "polluting" (they still use leaded gas in plenty of places, just to let you know. and smoking kills more people than weather related accidents that have gone down in recent years, just like the temperatures) it would have the reverse intended effect. The only thing stopping the PRC and India from polluting more is the fact that we're buying up gasoline, too. It doesn't help that Beijing stocked up on gasoline to shut down its coal plants, either.

We have gotten ourselves down such a massive hole the only two options are to fight fire with fire or fight warheads with warheads.

Your choice.

Re:Obama's "Manhattan Project" On Alternative Ener

[strabes]

Conspiracy theories aside, you're right, the root problem is government interference in the first place. I'm certainly not advocating subsidies for oil here.

Exxon Valdez

[falconwolf]

I would hold that the Exxon Valdez incident argues FOR drilling ANWR. Just about everything that could go wrong did. But today you could wander that area and never realize anything untoward had ever occurred.

You wouldn't notice anything unless you were a fisherman who had his life destroyed by Exxon Valdez. More than 10 years later (this from 1999) the fishing industry still hadn't recovered. People in Alaska are still (wrote this February) waiting for compensation, 20 years later. So far the fishermen haven't seen a dime from Exxon. Even today studies are finding wildlife is still adversely effected.

If you think everything is the same for those who had to live through Exxon Valdez you're obviously living in your own fantasy world.

Oil is not a long-term solution.

Agreed. But it IS the only short term solution anyone is proposing.

Drilling for oil off shore is a short term solution? Yea, while people are talking about it, not one of them has said anything about how long it will take before the first drop of oil pumped will end up in someone's gas tank. I surely doubt that will happen one year, forget one month, after exploration starts. The "Wall Street Journal", which is not an environmentalist group, says offshore drilling "won't affect physical supplies of oil." Here's an iteresting quote from Fadel Gheit, oil and gas analyst with Oppenheimer & Co. Equity Capital Markets Division: "If we were to drill today, realistically speaking, we should not expect a barrel of oil coming out of this new resource for three years, maybe even five years, so let's not kid ourselves". Oh, and don't blame Democrats for the offshore drilling ban, as president George H.W. Bush imposed an executive ban in 1990.

Why waste another dime on trying to extend the supply.

Because we need energy NOW.

Yea, right, if we start drilling now we can pump oil now. HAHA!!! See above quotes.

Falcon

Re:The old black question

[ScrewMaster]

I think you may be seriously underestimating the deliciousness of nachos.

Seriously. Just ask Hellboy.

Re:Obama's "Manhattan Project" On Alternative Ener

[falconwolf]

Personally I don't believe boxing ourselves into a corner where only a miracle can save us is sound policy. Obviously you do, thus faith based policy.

Aren't you boxing yourself in by relying on offshore drilling?

And I can promise you that if you idiots get control of the US economy and drive us into 2nd World status the ONLY thing American voters will care about is regaining our 'lost glory'.

I bet it's likely to happen, the US economy going down the toilet, whether McCain or Obama wins. It already is.

We can argue about when we will hit Peak Oil, nobody disputes the evident truth that we will hit it. So replacing oil isn't a question of whether, but one of what and when. So just suck it up and let the marketplace sort this out

I'm all for letting the free market sort it out. And by that I mean end all subsidies to coal and petroleum as well as agribusinesses.

Falcon

Cadmium-Telluride?

[jcr]

Will these work outside of Colorado?

-jcr

Re:Obama's "Manhattan Project" On Alternative Ener

[falconwolf]

Its not like "alternative energy" is some issue that only enviromentalist hippies care about. Republicans want it too

That's why Republican Reagan increased alternative energy funding? Oh that's right he dropped it like a hot potato. I bet if he had kept Carter's work going we'd be a hell of a lot closer to being energy independent.

dependent on a lot of unstable governments

That explains why Reagan and Bush Sr opposed Saddam, except they both supported him. Heck Reagan even armed Saddam with those WMDs Bush Jr invaded Iraq for. And I'm still waiting to see them. However I doubt I will because he used them while Reagan supported him.

Falcon

Federal tax is 18.4 cents per GALLON.

[jeffb (2.718)]

So where do you get your gas for $1.40/gallon?

The federal gas tax has been 18.4 cents since 1993. In that time, I've paid as little as .89/gallon, and as much as $4.20/gallon. The federal tax component contributes less than 5% to what I pay for gas today.

I'd LOVE to see a 13% component attached to the federal gas tax, with all the revenue from that component directed to alternative fuels and transportation systems.

What we NEED is more nuclear power

[falconwolf]

Prove it! And prove there will be no dangerous radioactive waste left.

He admires the European model of Government so much why doesn't he see they were wise in using nuclear power?

Even "Businessweek" admits it can take 10 years to build a nuclear power plant in Europe. Like that's going to help us now.

Falcon

Re:What we NEED is more nuclear power

[arrowrod]

2 + 2 = 4 How is that? It "can" take 10 years. Hell it can take 25 years. How did we win World War II in 3 1/2 years? Oh yeah, you "it can't be done" boys were not alive then.

Re:Obama's "Manhattan Project" On Alternative Ener

[LeafOnTheWind]

Tell "no choice" to science. Solar panels are as close to providing our base power needs as fusion, which, incidentally, would be a far greater advancement. All other renewable sources are based on location (wind, tidal, geothermal, etc.) and, unless you have a stable and cheap room-temperature superconductors, that's not realistic either.

I don't think you actually understand the nature of energy production in an engineering standpoint. The ideal efficiency for a solar panel is 20%, but I don't see even 20% efficiency doing much for Seattle.

Nuclear fission is not an ideal solution, but it is a realistic solution. Oh, and it's called nuclear fission or nuclear power, not "nukes."

Re:Obama's "Manhattan Project" On Alternative Ener

[falconwolf]

Nuclear does have the benefit of no greenhouse gases

Actually nuclear power does emit greenhouse gases. The major building materials for nuclear power plants are concrete which is made from cement and steel, both of which require massive amounts of energy to make. Cement has to be fired in a kiln which is fueled by coal, coke, or natural gas. While recycled steel has lower embodied energy than virgin steel, it's still takes a lot of energy to make. And that's not counting the mining and refining of the uranium.

Falcon

**YAWN**

[Anonymous Coward]

Still waiting for something to actually HAPPEN in the real world

Leaves room to lower the subsidies

[Lonewolf666]

If the delta is large enough, the subsidies can be reduced without strangling the industry.

Germany (my country) is doing that BTW:
A new solar plant gets a subsidized prize for the energy, but that price depends on the year in which the plant goes online. Each year it is lowered by a few percent. Now it is sometimes argued that the subsidies could be cut faster because of the large increase in cost efficiency in making the panels. But at least we got the trend right.

Re:Obama's "Manhattan Project" On Alternative Ener

[falconwolf]

The ideal efficiency for a solar panel is 20%, but I don't see even 20% efficiency doing much for Seattle.

Seattle is close to Oregon isn't it? Oregon has more solar energy potential than both Germany and Japan yet they lead in solar installations.

Falcon

solar panels aren't green

[timmarhy]

PV isn't a clean technology. they take almost as much energy to make as they produce over their life time and they involve some highly toxic chemicals, so disposing of them after they are broken is going to be a huge problem. these particular panels use cadmium ffs.

Re:solar panels aren't green

[DKelley]

Wrong.
I would bet that you either 1) work for an oil or energy company and are just trying to spread FUD, or 2) you bought someone else's FUD and don't know any better.

Re:Obama's "Manhattan Project" On Alternative Ener

[emilper]

if

Vast swaths of the Western US need to get covered with wind farms.

, how are you going to

not spend another penny aiding and abetting the Petroleum industry

and lubricate those wing turbines ?

Re:Obama's "Manhattan Project" On Alternative Ener

[falconwolf]

I had a car for decades but you find out that you can become healthier and less frazzled by getting rid of your car.

I used to ride my bike more than 100 miles a week. That ended when I was hit while riding my bike which left me with a permanent disability. Now I wish I had died instead of lived. I will never willingly get rid of my car now.

You should have your freedom to own your stuff and you should pay for the true cost of owning that stuff.

On this I agree. If I could I'd replace the income tax with a pollution tax, as well as reduce the size of government.

Falcon

Re:Obama's "Manhattan Project" On Alternative Ener

[Wonko the Sane]

if

Vast swaths of the Western US need to get covered with wind farms.

, how are you going to

not spend another penny aiding and abetting the Petroleum industry

and lubricate those wing turbines ?

Synthetic oil

Re:Obama's "Manhattan Project" On Alternative Ener

[emilper]

Large areas are still devoid of life.

Indeed, it must have been the cleaning crews that went around and microwaved all life. Greenies are so melodramatic ... "devoid of life", "devastated", "oil company shill" etc. I think greenies are oil company shills since most of their requests (wind turbines etc.) end up using more energy than will ever help produce.

Re:Obama's "Manhattan Project" On Alternative Ener

[emilper]

and synthetic lubricants are made from ... ? If I remember right, the synthetic lubricants are still soaps made of carbohydrates with long molecules ...

Re:Obama's "Manhattan Project" On Alternative Ener

[LeafOnTheWind]

That's... nice? Despite them being closer than, say, Seattle and New York, I was referring to the fact that Seattle is often covered by clouds, while Oregon usually isn't.

However, Seattle was simply an example of an area where solar power would be impractical due to weather conditions. It was an example because Seattle is actually already very environmentally friendly in power generation since hydroelectric is so easily utilizable in the area.

Re:Obama's "Manhattan Project" On Alternative Ener

[Wonko the Sane]

and synthetic lubricants are made from ... ?

synthetic oil:

Synthetic oil is oil consisting of chemical compounds which were not originally present in crude oil (petroleum), but were artificially made (synthesized) from other compounds.

Re:Obama's "Manhattan Project" On Alternative Ener

[falconwolf]

Big words coming from someone busily plugging away at a keyboard which is attached to a computer that is certainly sucking up its share of electricity. Gee, where you do you think that energy is coming from? Does your house/apartment/whatever run completely on solar/hydro/wind power?

I agreed with you until I got here. Where I live wind genies produce some energy and a lot more can be added. As for where GP can get his energy, New York is a good location for more wind genies. Between Massachusetts and North Carolina, NYC is in there, the offshore resources for wind are good too. Unfortunately NIMBYs are preventing offshore wind farms, er doing what they can to stop them.

Does your house/apartment/whatever run completely on solar/hydro/wind power?

I rent now but I want to build my home Off the Grid and build a hybrid power system using solar and wind.

Do you grow and eat your own food?

Though I live in a city, downtown Minneapolis is about 15 minutes bike ride (as it's too much a hassle I will not drive there), I have shared some of the food I grow in my garden with neighbors. By the end of the month I should be able to start making sauces and soups from the basil, onions, tomatillos, and tomatoes I'm growing then can it. The food I can should last me the rest of the year. Then again though I'm single, as I said earlier I also share what I grow.

Falcon

solar and Seattle

[falconwolf]

However, Seattle was simply an example of an area where solar power would be impractical due to weather conditions. It was an example because Seattle is actually already very environmentally friendly in power generation since hydroelectric is so easily utilizable in the area.

Seattle can get it's solar power from Oregon, Oregon can produce plenty to share. As for hydro being environmentally friendly, dams are not friendly to the environment. Ask the salmon. Take a look at Klamath River and what's happened there. Also eventually they need to be dredged, adding to the cost.

Falcon

Re:solar and Seattle

[LeafOnTheWind]

You're right, I should have said "renewable." And no, interstate electrical transportation is not practical on a large scale. This is exactly what I was saying about two posts up.

Do your research - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_power_transmission#Limitations

When I asked if the OP had a room temperature superconductor, I wasn't just asking to be argumentative. That is the kind of technology that would be required to make long distance electrical transportation feasible and it doesn't exist.

Re:solar and Seattle

[falconwolf]

interstate electrical transportation is not practical on a large scale. This is exactly what I was saying about two posts up.

Do your research

Do your own research. High Voltage DC transmission does not have the problems AC does over long distances. Hint, it was linked to in your link. Path 66 is part of a high voltage DC transmission network from Oregon to Southern California. The only problem cited with it is where it's in mountains where too much snow settles on it. Look at the map, that's a hell of a lot longer than it is from Oregon to Seattle.

Falcon

Re:solar and Seattle

[LeafOnTheWind]

HVDC is interesting, but costly. The problem is that we continue to use AC power. While inverters can be built, they are complex and inefficient, often losing up to 7.5% of the power transmitted on the line.

Path 66 and path 15 are deceptive, as they appear to show large scale power transfer. However, the maximum load on the power lines is a little over 5000 Megawatts on a good day. According to the Energy Information Administration, Oregon, which is ranked 30th in the US in energy usage, requires 12,333 megawatts. San Francisco alone can require 950 megawatts on a summer night.

Solar power is a great advancement, but it simply cannot provide the energy needs of the country at this time. Supplemental use is good but the infrastructure needed to support wide scale solar use is simply too inefficient and expensive.

Re:solar and Seattle

[JonathanR]

The longest HVDC link in the world is currently the Inga-Shaba 1700 km 600 MW link connecting the Inga Dam to the Shaba copper mine, in the Democratic Republic of Congo.

Oil != electricity

[Firethorn]

My dispute with this line of reasoning is that we use an insignificant amount of oil for electricity generation purposes. So your three war argument is off-topic.

The significant hydrocarbon sources for our electricity is coal and natural gas.

Of which, receive some of the most marginal amounts of subsidy in the industry

As for being used on cars and such - solar doesn't have enough density to realistically power a car via an on-car array.

Re:Oil != electricity

[bcrowell]

My dispute with this line of reasoning is that we use an insignificant amount of oil for electricity generation purposes.
Where I live, in Southern California, I believe SCE generates our electricity from oil and natural gas. Oil comes from oilfields. Natural gas comes from oilfields and natural gas fields.

[...] coal and natural gas [...] receive some of the most marginal amounts of subsidy in the industry
The WSJ article you link to is talking about direct, overt government subsidies. Those aren't the subsidies I'm talking about.

Re:Oil != electricity

[Firethorn]

Where I live, in Southern California, I believe SCE generates our electricity from oil and natural gas. Oil comes from oilfields.

You believe. Per SCE's site, it's "These resources include natural gas, a fossil fuel; falling water in hydroelectric plants; nuclear energy and renewable resources, like solar and wind."

A coal plant was shut down 3 years ago, due to failure to obtain new permits, rendered uneconomical due to increased pollution control requirements.

Oil is not listed.

Natural gas comes from oilfields and natural gas fields.

While NG does come from fields much like oil, it doesn't get shipped over here from the middle east. Production is domestic. Thus, engaging in wars overseas, for oil or not, won't have an effect on NG supplies.

The WSJ article you link to is talking about direct, overt government subsidies. Those aren't the subsidies I'm talking about.

Then which ones are you talking about? The ones where they aren't taxed like they should be for the environmental harm they cause? Or the portion of the military budget supposably spent to secure supplies?

Re:Oil != electricity

[dgallard]

Oil is used to power cars.

Solar panels will be used to charge
batteries of electric and plug-in
hybrid cars.

Newer fuel cell technology will need
solar power to split water.

ALL of this will become economical
as the price of oil continues to rise,
which it will since demand is now equal
to or greater than supply and is growing
more rapidly than supply.

Re:Oil != electricity

[Firethorn]

Any particular reason you decided to manually line break this post?

Solar panels will be used to charge batteries of electric and plug-in hybrid cars.

Possibly. I prefer to think of this stuff like a network cloud. Electricity from solar is no more suited to the powering of an electric car than electricity from a coal plant. A kwh is a kwh.

If anything, standard driving tendencies would make solar power LESS suitable for charging electric cars - they tend to be out and about during the day, which would require either additional batteries or fancy heat storage techniques to produce power during the time the car's plugged in at night.

Solar power is great for things like air conditioning, though, because of it's tendency to produce the most power during the hottest parts of the day.

Newer fuel cell technology will need solar power to split water.

How about using heat and energy from a nuclear plant to produce hydrogen using a highly efficient process?

ALL of this will become economical as the price of oil continues to rise, which it will since demand is now equal to or greater than supply and is growing more rapidly than supply.

Going by the news, demand in the USA is actually dropping, and by economic theory demand=supply. It's just that the demand/supply price curve is no longer at a price point for many traditional uses. People now see more benefit in alternatives and conservation.

Re:Oil != electricity

[e_hu_man]

with gm and other players from the auto industry working with the electricity industry (as discussed on slashdot at http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/07/22/1827224), i would say the line of reasoning is quite on-topic. if our solar energy production capacity and ability to store that energy advance sufficiently, we'll be charging cars overnight rather than pumping gas.

Re:Oil != electricity

[Firethorn]

That's an awful lot of advancement to matter in the short term, though.

And, if it comes down to it, nuclear power plants would be rendered even more economical due to the load balancing effects of charging thousands of electric cars during off-peak periods. Especially if people allow them to be used to power the grid during peaks.

Re:Oil != electricity

[dgallard]

the solar recharging should be done where the
car is located - for example, at the work place

global demand is growing - the Chinese economy
will surpass the U.S. economy this century

Re:Oil != electricity

[Firethorn]

the solar recharging should be done where the car is located - for example, at the work place

Not always an option - in most areas the workplace is in a far more densely populated area, with heavy energy demands from the operation of lights, climate control, and industrial equipment. A walmart might be able to power itself via solar panels on the roof, but I doubt a 20 story bank building would, much less if you expect the workers in said building to charge their cars at the same time.

Not to mention the adjustments and retrofitting of parking lots to provide power receptacles for recharging cars, and the working out of billing for the energy consumed by people's vehicles.

Anyways - what I was trying to say with the cloud comment is that tying solar panels to recharging cars is a mistake. You have this nebulous cloud - on one side you have power source inputs. Coal, solar, wind, hydro, nuclear, natural gas, etc... On the other side you have all the consumers - Computers, TVs, AC, heating, industrial equipment, lights, etc...

You don't tie solar panels to EVs, air conditioners, or any other specific consumer. It all goes to the grid, contributing evenly to power consumption.

global demand is growing - the Chinese economy will surpass the U.S. economy this century

I understand, but the Chinese(and Indian) economy is growing despite the increases in cost, and it's my hope that they end up helping to provide solutions - by skipping over the energy inefficient builds of america(and europe), and end up building energy efficient arcology analogs.

Re:Oil != electricity

[dgallard]

i was arguing that solar will become economical as an energy supply during peak usage (mid-day). The solar panels need not be at the location of the workplace - the point is that electric cars (hybrid) will become economical and can be charged at the work place - solar (and wind) power will end up dominating the energy supply (if not now, then 100 years from now) unless we use nuclear, which requires storing waste material for tens or hundreds of thousands of years, which is absurd.

Don't expect the Chinese or anyone to forgo the luxury of private cars. I am all for public transit (and dramatic increase in budget to build it instead of destroying Iraq, for example). But private cars are great, China will want them, and the solution is to find non-petroleum-based means to power them. I.e., hybrid and fuel cell (based on current knowledge). Both of those will benefit from solar and wind power. Solar (and wind) are inexhaustable power sources and are MUCH cleaner than petroleum and nuclear power sources).

Re:Oil != electricity

[Firethorn]

unless we use nuclear, which requires storing waste material for tens or hundreds of thousands of years, which is absurd.

And propaganda for the most part. Long before that we'd be digging the stuff up to reprocess as the 'waste' is still 90-95% fuel.

The remaining waste is only radioactive for a few centuries.

With breeder reactors, it's energy positive to filter the necessary elements out of sea water.

Don't expect the Chinese or anyone to forgo the luxury of private cars

Two things about this - first is to vastly reduce the need for cars through proper city planning, to include mass transit. Second is to deploy an alternative to both such as PRT.

Then you can use biofuel/hydrogen/whatever for the few remaining long distance vehicles needed.

Re:Oil != electricity

[LunaticTippy]

While NG does come from fields much like oil, it doesn't get shipped over here from the middle east. Production is domestic. Thus, engaging in wars overseas, for oil or not, won't have an effect on NG supplies.

Actually, nearly 20% of US NG supplies are imported, mostly from Canada. We do get a small amount of LNG from the mideast. That amount is rising.

Re:Oil != electricity

[Firethorn]

I don't know about you, but I generally wouldn't count Canada/Mexico as importing very far. Maybe I should have specified 'domestic' as 'intra-continental'.

With a domestic use of 2 million*, but imports from the 'middle east' of around ~3k a month, and Norway coming in at another 3k, intercontinental shipping is insignificant, at less than 1% of the totals.

Heck, it's even coming from Egypt for the most part, and they at least have a fairly functional government.

*millions of cubic feet

Re:Oil != electricity

[LunaticTippy]

One interesting thing about NG is its link to oil. Many industrial processes can use whatever is cheaper as a feedstock/energy source, so when the price of one goes up demand rises for the other, raising that price as well.

The other thing is that prices are now high enough to make LNG pretty close to cost effective to ship. I wouldn't be surprised to see that take off as prices rise in the next decade or so. The middle east has >10x as much gas as North America, as does Russia.

Germany - some of the largest subsidies...

[Firethorn]

Germany (my country) is doing that BTW:

Very good, but I feel the need to point out that Germany is also has some of the largest subsidies for solar power going, to the point that installs are going in areas that are unrealistic. Comparatively speaking, it'd be better for many areas such as Italy, Greece, the middleast, Texas, and Nevada before installing large amounts in Germany.

The USA also did this for hybrid cars. As more cars are sold, the subsidies drop. They're completely gone now for the Honda Civic and Toyota Prius if I remember right.

Re:Germany - some of the largest subsidies...

[Lonewolf666]

Yes, promoting solar power was a political goal of the left-ish government several years ago, and they pushed it at a point when the panels were still quite expensive to make. A decline of the subsidies over time was built into the law, but it turned out that the cost improvements in manufacturing happened faster.

A faster cutback was recently discussed in the Bundestag(our parliament) but did not get a majority.

Re:No objection to a solar powered solar panel pla

[Firethorn]

I figured that - but you'd need to build the plant in a fashion to cool down and restart if you're expecting to use solar power to keep it running.

Thus my proposal for natural gas at night.

Re:Obama's "Manhattan Project" On Alternative Ener

[falconwolf]

If placing a wind generator on a piece of land would produce enough electricity to pay for itself and make a profit then you can bet that the land owner will put one up.

Erecting a wind genie isn't all it takes, the electricity has to be transmitted as well. Do you recall those rolling blackouts in California several years ago? A wind farm capable of producing 10 megawatts of power sat idle because the power cables were not strung up to deliver the power.

If a technology is truly worth implementing then it will stand on its own and not need to be subsidized.

Does that also apply to all other energy sources? Bush and McCain want to subsidize nuclear power. McCain doesn't want to subsidize solar but he will nuclear. I agree subsidies distort markets, that includes subsidies for nuclear power.

Falcon

Re:Obama's "Manhattan Project" On Alternative Ener

[falconwolf]

We have gotten ourselves down such a massive hole the only two options are to fight fire with fire or fight warheads with warheads.

There's a third option. We can pool our research with theirs to create clean energy and share it with the world.

Of course, I can hear a chorus of doubters and naysayers.

Falcon

Re:Obama's "Manhattan Project" On Alternative Ener

[falconwolf]

The fallacy with your statement is that solar and wind aren't really competing with oil.

But they are. Have you ever heard of the electric car? Have you heard of Natural gas? Natural gas fuel many power plants in the US. But as T Boone Picken has announced, wind can replace those natural gas power plants. Though he doesn't say it so can solar. Then the natural gas can be used as fuel for vehicles.

Falcon

Re:Obama's "Manhattan Project" On Alternative Ener

[arrowrod]

No, your short sighted.

Re:Obama's "Manhattan Project" On Alternative Ener

[arrowrod]

So Java is an interpreted language that runs slowly and Cobol is a compiled program that runs fast. So Oil is slow and COBOL is fast? Or is Java slow and coal fast? Or is...

distributed power

[falconwolf]

Solar power produced by utility sized power stations will only be built in places that already have a suitable transmission line. When solar panels and to a lesser extent, batteries become cheap enough, most solar power will be generated right where it is used, rather than being sent down a lossy transmission line for hundreds of miles.

This is why I support distributed power such as roof mounted solar PVs and wind genies where there are good sites. As I see it most people only look at large scale projects though. With only a few acres a 5 megawatt wind genie can be erected that can power a number of homes and small businesses.

Falcon

Re:Obama's "Manhattan Project" On Alternative Ener

[Courageous]

What we should do is put a floor on the price of a barrel of oil. Say $90/barrel.

That floor is less than the current price of oil.

So why do it, you ask?

As it turns out there have been great fluctuations in the past. Alternative energy takes a signfiicant amount of tooling and capitalization, and past investors have done this, only to be destroyed by precipitous drops in the price of oil. By simply guaranteeing a minimum, risk is removed, and investors can do what makes sense to do right now, but are simply not doing for fear alone.

C//

Re:Obama's "Manhattan Project" On Alternative Ener

[arrowrod]

So, you got fired from you job at HP? Did you get caught sleeping in your office? Really close to work. What does France do with all of its nuclear waste?

Re:Obama's "Manhattan Project" On Alternative Ener

[arrowrod]

Pollution? The world is burning 85 million barrels of oil every day. In ten years it is going to be 100 million barrels a day. Now we are being warned of carbon footprint. What the hell does that mean? Oh yeah, plants grow better with a higher CO2 content in the atmosphere. So more food. Warmer climate, because the North Pole is melting and the South Pole is adding ice. WTF? Why do all of these arguments have to be surrounded by lies. Have any of you seen the CO2 statistics? Excellent, the data is hidden.

Re:Obama's "Manhattan Project" On Alternative Ener

[arrowrod]

Yeah, you pay $81 and the taxpayers pay $500. Wait a second, your one of the taxpayers in New York City. Did you mention the New York City Income Tax? Did you mention the property taxes? Did you mention that New York state is short $25 billion this year. What is New York City short? Your New York model is unsustainable.

Re:Obama's "Manhattan Project" On Alternative Ener

[WindBourne]

Actually, it is the midwest to east that needs the wind generators. Here in the west, we are better off with geo-thermal as well as solar thermal farms.

As to generating H2, Why? What use would it be? For transportation? Use electricity except for boats and planes. Use bio-fuels for these.

Ppl need to apply the right type of AE for the area. In addition, we need to start up nukes the way that McCain wants. The funny thing is that these 2 are trying to be at opposite of each others. It is better to do a bit of what each wants; big AE and Big nukes.

Nukes would be good on the great lakes, back east, along the coasts, etc.

Live barefoot

[arrowrod]

Move to Africa. Or the Brazilian rain forest. You can be barefoot and nude. Save the environment. Just don't shit in the woods.

Re:Nice article, but it sort of dismissed a-Si tec

[arrowrod]

Finally, A voice of reason. Remember memory chips being really scarce and expensive. Remember paying $180 for a 16meg memory board? Boys and Girls, the Asians are loading up. We are going to have solar cells coming out of our ears. Luckily, the utility companies will resist putting your solar farm on the grid till the bitter end.

In addition,

[WindBourne]

The federal blocks were mostly for solar thermal, not solar PV. The reason is that solar thermal is now CHEAP (.60/watt) and can work as a base load power plant. Solar PV is generally expensive and is generally being installed on rooftops or even on parking lots.

Re:In addition,

[kesuki]

"even above parking lots."

fixed that for you, not only to parkers get cool shade, the parking lot, gets to provide green energy, and when it rains, people can avoid getting hit by rain in a parking lot if the lines of panels are big enough and long enough to provide shelter from rain as well as sun.

it would take a lot of capacity for nanosolar to really get annoying to more costly PV companies, that or they'd have to undercut the competitors. but if nanosolar really can create massive capacity, i think the first thing they should do is sell 'wal-mart' on having PV shaded parking lots. wal-mart uses incredible amounts of electricity for AC systems in summers, and heating in winter, as well as for lighting year round, having shade from PV for cars (leaving enough of a gap for the existing trees flowers etc to survive) and all that power plus all the 'good' press that walmart now desperately wants to counter it's image of destroying small town america...

and if they can compete with coal in america, then the next logical step is to compete with the price of coal for steel production. can you imagine laser smelting of steel? i know you need carbon to make steel, but you also need intense heat, if the intense heat comes from industrial sized Infrared lasers, then you produce a lot less toxic waste producing steel. the price of big industrial lasers is big, but they last a long long time, and they might negate the need for big smoke stacks and big scrubbers and what to do with the toxic remnants afterwards... ahh i can dream can't i?

Re:In addition,

[Wonko the Sane]

can you imagine laser smelting of steel? i know you need carbon to make steel, but you also need intense heat, if the intense heat comes from industrial sized Infrared lasers, then you produce a lot less toxic waste producing steel. the price of big industrial lasers is big, but they last a long long time, and they might negate the need for big smoke stacks and big scrubbers and what to do with the toxic remnants afterwards... ahh i can dream can't i?

I would imagine that you can melt iron ore quite a bit more efficiently by just passing the electricity through it instead of converting electricity to light and then back to heat.

A quick run of the numbers.

[Anonymous Coward]

Why didn't the author do this?:

I figure if they are claiming $1/watt that the watt hour output per day is perhaps 6Wh.

A thousand days would be about 3 years and 6kWh or 2kWh/year - or about $0.20 per year of electricity - perhaps a 5 year payback if you don't count the rest of the infrastructure (land inverters etc.).

Not good enough - I think they would have to get down to about 10 cents per watt to replace coal.

LOL; ROFL

[WindBourne]

You are on /., with the login of Ancient hacker and you say that nothing gets cheaper. Hmmm. So, our computers still have the same capabilities and costs of the Eniac?

Re:LOL; ROFL

[Ancient_Hacker]

I did not say that things do not get cheaper. I said that even if it costs only 1/10th the amount to manufacture, that does not affect the retail price much if at all. For example the first round of IC-based computers cost much less to make, but were priced just a teense less than their predecessors.

Re:Obama's "Manhattan Project" On Alternative Ener

[curmudgeon99]

you are = you're

Almost all states have some form of incentives

[RingDev]

Check http://dsireusa.org/ to find your own state's initiatives.

-Rick

Matter of time

[Lonewolf666]

So far, they can afford to pick their customers.

But First Solar are not the only ones who have innovative solar cell technology. There are some more companies entering the market with cheap thin-film panels. Eventually, production will catch up with demand and turning individual homeowners away will mean lost sales.

Re:Obama's "Manhattan Project" On Alternative Ener

[Jorophose]

Good luck then. Because you're going to need every drop of it.

Re:Obama's "Manhattan Project" On Alternative Ener

[curmudgeon99]

I stand corrected.

Re:The old black question

[DKelley]

Oh, and a lump of coal IS persistent? Give me a break. Which is MORE persistent a lump of coal that is burned once or a solar cell? How much energy is reproduced by the smoke at a coal plant vs. energy that is "reproduced" from the products of a solar plant? What stupid, retarded arguments: do you solar cell poo-pooers REALLY think that a producer like First Solar, and its products, is wasting MORE energy than a coal plant?

HVDC is interesting, but costly.

[falconwolf]

No, HVDC isn't really any more costly than AC, and over long distances it loses less power even with loses due to inverters.

The problem is that we continue to use AC power.

Originally we used DC. Thomas Edison's power company in NYC was DC. It was only after Tesla pushed for AC, backed by Westinghouse, did AC become dominate. Edison even tried to electrocute an elephant in the War of Currents to discredit AC. Unfortunately the elephant was made to suffer by being electrocuted a number of tymes, Edison wasn't successful in killing the elephant at first. It wasn't until 2007 before all the DC power in NYC was changed to AC. However NYC's Subway system still runs on DC. And people who build their homes Off the Grid, and there are more and more people doing it, all use DC.

Solar power is a great advancement, but it simply cannot provide the energy needs of the country at this time. Supplemental use is good but the infrastructure needed to support wide scale solar use is simply too inefficient and expensive.

Therein lies the problem, I made the mistake myself in not talking about distributed power generation. Most people including you want the next big thing to solve everything. If instead of building large power plants and relying on the infrastructure of large powerlines transmission wouldn't be such a big problem. In California almost every building could have PVs installed on the roof providing some power. While Washington may not be a good place for solar, it's great for wind. And a 5 megawatt wind genie on 5 acres can provide power for a number of families and small businesses. With power generation closer to where it's used large powerlines aren't needed as much. Places like Boeing's factory in Seattle will need more power than the site can provide, but those place are few and far between each other.

Falcon

solar

[falconwolf]

The federal blocks were mostly for solar thermal, not solar PV.

It was solar thermal the government suspended the applications for though.

Solar PV is generally expensive and is generally being installed on rooftops or even on parking lots.

Gee, solar PVs can be installed where energy is needed. In California PVs can provide energy when it's most needed, while it's sunny out.

Falcon

Re:Obama's "Manhattan Project" On Alternative Ener

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't be a fucking idiot.

Hey! Fucking Moron!

[Anonymous Coward]

What the fuck is the matter with you? Don't you know that you don't have to hit the return key in text boxes (unless you want to separate paragraphs, etc.)?

Stupid shit.

(The above commentary was not meant to be insulting, but, rather, to be informative. Please take it that way, dickweed.)

Re:Obama's "Manhattan Project" On Alternative Ener

[Lije Baley]

So despite your presumed (all those states have urban areas however) understanding of rural life and culture, you still make comments which sound like Eastern Urban bigotry?

I love how "progressive" people get together and tell redneck jokes and boast about how they would never live in Texas. There is nothing progressive about ANY kind of intolerance.