Isn't this the controversial machine that may or may not destroy the planet itself?
Goddammit NO. It's the machine that will not destroy the planet, but some controversial people have done a damn good job of spreading rumors that it will. The point of the LHC is to re-create events that occur everywhere in the universe all the time, including here on earth. It's just not practical to put 50' diameter detectors hanging in the upper atmosphere and wait for a particle collision to happen inside of one.
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.
there is nothing shielding it from the RF interference from the sun and the billions of other sources in the universe.... Interference is the signal you're not interested in. Looking for radio frequency emissions from the billions of detectable objects that are not our planet is sort of the point of a radio telescope isn't it?
Slashdot Mirror
Isn't this the controversial machine that may or may not destroy the planet itself?
Goddammit NO. It's the machine that will not destroy the planet, but some controversial people have done a damn good job of spreading rumors that it will. The point of the LHC is to re-create events that occur everywhere in the universe all the time, including here on earth. It's just not practical to put 50' diameter detectors hanging in the upper atmosphere and wait for a particle collision to happen inside of one.
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.