It now turns out that the "anti-war" movement was really just against Bush. Notice the absence of mass protests as Obama continues Bush's policies, this time with a "surge" in Afghanistan
That may be true of some antiwar activists but not all. Iraq was no threat to the US, I'm still waiting to see the WMDs that would create mushroom clouds over US cities.
Now what most Americans probably don't know is that the US created the conditions for what happened in both Afghanistan and Iraq. When the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan the US aided and supplied the Mujahideen there. As they say Afghan was the Soviet's Vietnam. But after the Soviets withdrew so did the US. Some of the Mujahideen then became the Taliban while others the Northern Alliance. With Iraq, both Reagan and Bush Sr armed and supported Saddam. In 1988-89 congress debated imposing sanctions on military aid to Saddam after it was confirmed he used WMDs on Kurds, Marsh Arabs, and others in Iraq but both Reagan and Bush SR argued it was against America's interest to cut off aid. Before Saddam ordered the invasion of Kuwait he could do no wrong, but when he did order the invasion Bush turned on him. And why did Saddam order the invasion? Because Kuwait was slant drilling into an Iraqi oil field.
Don't tell me with a straight face that the media gave George W. Bush a "free pass" as that is absurd.
What is absurd is to say the media didn't give George W Bush a free pass. I didn't hear one reporter question the existence of those WMDs Bush stood on television claiming Saddam had. After none were found the media didn't bat an eye supporting Bush saying the invasion was about regime change and not about WMDs. Or the invasion of Afghanistan wasn't about capturing bin Laden. Again Bush stood on TV demanding the Taliban turn over bin Laden, "or else". When the Taliban asked for proof bin Laden had anything to do with 911 Bush beat his chest and ordered the invasion of Afghanistan.But when bin Laden wasn't captured the invasion was no longer about that. To deny this is to deny reality.
I'm sick to death of our hypocritical politicians, Democrat and Republican alike.
Same here.
Look for the biggest "throw the bums out" election results in American history this November.
I wish this were true but I seriously doubt it. Most American voters have short memories as well as suffer from "all of Congress sucks but my reps." I am somewhat hopeful Kennedy's seat going to a Republican means other incumbents, in both parties, will also lose their seats but I doubt it.
This is a golden opportunity to pass term limits for Congress as their favorable poll number is now a mere 11 percent.
I don't like what's going on but I don't like term limits either. Instead I propose a Constitutional Amendment like what Texas has. In Texas the legislature only meets in odd numbered years, not every year, and the session only lasts for 140 days. 140 days every other year? Now here's my proposal:
Amendment 28 - Limiting how long congress can be in session:
Congress shall only meet in odd numbered years for 3 months. The president can call for a special session but such session shall only deal with a single issue.
I also propose another amendment, Amendment 29 - Amendment 12 Repealed, how the President is Chosen.
Each candidate shall run for President in an election with Condorcet or ranked voting. The winner shall be President with the candidate in second place being the Vice President.
Since most of our oil does NOT come from the mid east, and in fact it supplies China with more oil I find it hard to swallow the 'we are there for the oil' conspiracy.
I agree the US doesn't get much oil from the Mideast, the US's biggest supplier of oil is Canada and second is Mexico. However petroleum has a world wide market and if a supplier can get more money from somewhere else, oil will go there.
Actually that's why nothing was done about the genocide in Darfur, Sudan. Sudan exports a lot of oil to China and China didn't want to risk losing the oil. I don't know if you consider "BusinessWeek" to spread conspiracy theories but here's the article Oil for China, Guns for Darfur. That's the same problem with Iran, Iran supplies China with a lot of gas and China doesn't want to risk losing it. Directly from China, China, Iran sign biggest oil & gas deal. As long as a country supplies what it's supporters want it can get away with murder.
Solar thermal to heat water as your link bring up has a better payback period than solar PVs do for many people. Of course what has the quickest payback period is increasing insulation.
We can also always create gold by nuclear fusion if there's no more to mine. That doesn't mean we'll never run out of gold in a practical sense.
Plastic and polymers were originally made from plants and as long as there are still bushes, trees, and vines growing we can make polymers and plastics from them.
No it's not. Biopolymers are produced by living organisms. The cellulose from trees can be used. The first plastics made were bioplastics from plants. Do you recall the old Cellophane plastic wrap for sandwiches? Made from wood cellulose. Eastman Kodak, the camera company, first used plant based plastic for it's cameras and film. Even today film is sometimes called "Cellulose".
Plant, cellulose, based plastics only fail by the wayside after DuPont was awarded patents on making plastic from petroleum in the mid 1930s.
Becoming cheap and widely popular may do more harm than good I fear.
Now this is a potential problem, forests could be cleared to plant plantations for polymers. However the products are compostable.
Only because coal is subsidized and it is allowed to pass external costs to others.
If I could pay less than 10k and have a 10 year pay back time
You can pay less than that, you may or you may not find it worthwhile though. And today the payback period is less than 10 years. For residential systems New Jersey has a payback period of 1.5 years. "New York and Delaware are next in line with payback in 3-6 years, and California, Maryland, Massachusetts and Wisconsin all tied for fourth at seven years."
The fact that governments keep trying to shift this cost to individual households tells me that it just isn't worth it.
First, I'd rather taxpayers be subsidized before megacorporations are. What I really want is for the federal government to stop all subsidies and return the money back to taxpayers. Then allow them to decide what they will pay for themselves. As it is now though your electricity from coal and nuclear power is subsidized. Chevron's CEO agrees to lobby with Sierra Club to end coal subsidies. And here's Rep Edward Markey crowing about how My Climate Bill 'Has Huge Subsidies For Clean Coal! Huge!'. In that speech he lists some of the subsidies large power companies including coal and nuclear power get. It comes to tens of billions of dollars. If however you add up all the subsides geothermal, solar, wind and other alternative and renewable energy sources get, it doesn't add up to $! Billion.
Fact is is conventional energy sources are massively subsidized with taxpayer money.
The ability to communicate and run your refrigerator in, say, a hurricane-induced blackout makes the system more valuable than simply what it can displace from your electric bill each month.
The problem with this, islanding, is that it's dangerous to utility workers. If the power from the utility comes out and workers are sent out for repairs they can get electrocuted. To prevent this the inverter has to disconnect from the grid. Grid-tie inverters are made to disconnect and turn off though. So if you still want power then a second inverter, or more, has to be used to connect the storage batteries to the building wiring with that one then feeding the grid-tie inverter.
A more efficient (and cheaper) technology would make a small solar power backup system closer to a gas generator as far as ease of use and energy density.
Some people use a small generator as their backup for when there's little sun and or wind. Converting the engine to run on alcohol or biodiesel allows you to make your own fuel for it.
2) Solar cells cost money to produce. When the total life energy (KWH) produced is divided into the total cost, we arrive at the cost per KWH. We would like that cost to be lower than the local power utility supply cost.
Coal and nuclear power plants cost money to build, and without subsidies they may not be built. Want to see something ironic if not tragically funny? Watch and listen as Chevron's CEO agrees to lobby with Sierra Club to end coal subsidies as well as how Rep Edward Markey crows about how "My Climate Bill 'Has Huge Subsidies For Clean Coal! Huge!'" In his speech he also says how much nuclear and other energy industries get. While they get billions of dollars all of the subsidies for geothermal, solar, and wind add up to less than $1 Billion.
solar power can, just barely, make sense for an idealist.
Except the payback period in New Jersey is "1.5 years for residential systems. New York and Delaware are next in line with payback in 3-6 years, and California, Maryland, Massachusetts and Wisconsin all tied for fourth at seven years."
if you invest in solar panels that generate 10 kWh of electricity on a bright shiny day when they are installed, they will probably only generate 8 kWh after 20 years.
New Jersey Offers Fastest Payback for Solar Systems. "In New Jersey, that wait time is 1.5 years for residential systems. New York and Delaware are next in line with payback in 3-6 years, and California, Maryland, Massachusetts and Wisconsin all tied for fourth at seven years."
Using 7 years, you can almost buy 3 new panel arrays in 20 years. Or using 13 years you'll be on your second set of panels in 20 years.
Because if the solar panels only last for 20 years (optimistically) and it takes 20 years to recoup the cost, you're not getting anywhere.
PVs are warrantied 20, 25, even 30 years yet their payback period can be 7 years. With a payback period of 7 years if your PVs last 30 years you get 23 years of energy free. Well not totally free, maintenance is still needed.
Nuclear plants and hydro dams are built to last a good bit longer than their break even time.
most poeple dont stay in the one home for 20+ years, so it's very hard to justify the investment.
Except installed solar increases the value of the house. If you live in a house a few years and have solar panels installed when you move in, when you leave it will be mostly paid for and you get more from the sell. This is even more true in California with it's high electricity costs.
If they can get the costs down, more poeple will buy this, just like solar how water and insulation.
Actually of these the first step should be to insulate more, increasing insulation has the quickest payback. And in many places solar thermal or hot water also pays back faster than solar PVs. Solar power may heat water someplace that doesn't get enough sunlight to provide electricity.
Coal fired and nuclear power plants aren't expensive? Neither coal companies nor the nuclear power industry have their hands out begging for government assistance? Cost Is Chief Barrier to 'Clean Coal' and the Nuclear power industry is Hooked on Subsidies. "Nuclear power appeals to state planners, not market actors."
2. the Return on Investment is low (extreme cases - 10 years, but typically more than 20).
The payback period can be much shorter than that. In one survey New Jersey had a payback period of 1.5 years. New York had a payback period of 3 years and Delaware 6 for residential applications.
The problem with current panels isn't the efficiency. More efficiency is welcome but the real problem with solar panels is the cost. It takes too many years to recoup the very heavy initial investment. If the price can be made such that the panels pay for themselves with 2 or 3 years then they make solar power a real alternative to the grid.
No the initial cost isn't a problem either. The problem is people's expectation. They want it paid off last year. Think the coal or nuclear power plant has been paid off after 10 years? Without subsidies they may never be paid for. Here's an investment opportunity in Southern Africa with a minimum expected payback period of 25 years.
I've observed that traditional solar cells produce the highest output when the panels are cool. If these perform the same way, using them to heat water or something else to draw off excess heat might be necessary to achieve maximum electrical generation.
Heating water may be a bonus, or, plain and simply better. Solar thermal, hot water, systems work better in some places than PVs do.
Solar PV is roughly 20x-100x more expensive than coal or nuclear power.
Really? Did you also subtract the subsidies coal and nuclear power get? Yes, they both get subsidized as well.
If I was Obama, I'd toss a billion or so at this scientist and see if he couldn't get mass production of it up and running.
Ah if only... If I were President of the USA I'd veto all subsidies and let a freer market pick winners and losers. As it is now venture capitalists have been investing in different technologies for years, from Sergey Brin and Larry Page investing in Nanosolar to Elon Musk, founder of Paypal and CEO of SpaceX, investing in Tesla Motors.
I mean, as long as we're spending billionS keeping teachers temporarily employed (because their states can't afford them right now), right?
I hate it that the feds have to give the states the money but it was the feds who mandated a bunch of new regulations with No Child Left Behind and other laws. If the feds stayed within it's Constitutional limits federal taxes could be significantly reduced if not totally eliminate the federal income tax. States and local governments could then raise their own taxes if they so chose to. Of course that's only part of the problem. States like California went on a spending spree during the roaring '90s. Then when the economy tanked they lost a lot of revenue. Then there's CA's teachers unions. Try to fire an underperforming teacher and watch the years speed by before they are fired. About the only way to fight the unions is by allowing school choice with charter and private schools getting matching funding. Then watch as the bad public schools are emptied out so the teachers can be fired.
If the panels were free (as in beer), but the costs of a home installation cost $10,000 (what it would cost in my area), it would not be worth it from a purely economic point of view.
Ah, I smell something potentially good. You may not be interested but for someone with the proclivity and ability to learn that may be a good field to get into. It's one of those "green jobs", installation.
Which is still pretty big news. Right now, the biggest problem with PV panels is the high cost.
Yea the upfront costs are higher but over their lifetime they save money and energy. However you can, er could before the economic meltdown, have the cost of a solar energy system rolled into the cost of your house and therefore be part of the mortgage. Because they, solar energy systems, reduce living costs some mortgage lenders gave borrowers larger loans to pay for the systems.
As I see it because the systems pay for their costs, as to whether a solar energy system is a good buy, "investment", rests on a couple of others considerations. One is will the buyer feel better about it, and is that worth it? Another is whether the opportunity cost, if instead money was invested, is higher or lower. If you don't mind feeding the power company and environmental issues aren't of any concern then would you invest the cost of the solar system into financial instruments and what is the return on them?
My current Saturn is an 01, and when I get washed the panels look new. Still runs great.
My Saturn is a 2000 and while most of the panels are fine a few weeks ago I slipped on ice and slid into another car. We both pulled over and looked at the damage, there was none on the car I hit but the my car's fender cracked and broke off. I bet the body of the car I hit was metal and if mine had been it probably would have been fine too. If not, a dent in metal is easy to pull out but the fender should be replaced because it is plastic. Using twine I tied it up but I'm concerned about the twine breaking then the fender falling down under the tire while driving.
When was the last time you find any plastic that can last 10 years under the sun?
My Saturn is almost that old and I found out the body is plastic, at least the fenders are. When I was driving I slipped on ice and into another car. There wasn't a mark on that car but my fender cracked and broke off. "Broke off"? At least if it had been metal I could have pulled out the dent but now the whole fender has to be replaced.
I've also got other plastic items even older that are still good.
The only remaining question (I didn't see anything about it in TFA) is how durable this stuff is compared to the current panels.
No, there's another question. That is can these solar arrays be commercially and economically produced? While it sounds good too often hardly anything comes out onto the market when there's an announcement like this.
Sure there are rights being restricted. If you use GPL code you can not close your own code and still distribute it.
I'm afraid you sound a bit confused about this. If you apply the GPL to your own code, you certainly do have the right to close it and distribute it. All copyright holders have that right.
I'm not confused at all. If I modify BSDed code then distribute it I can close my code but I can not close my own code and distribute it when I modify GPL code. From GNU: "Using the GNU GPL will require that all the released improved versions be free software. This means you can avoid the risk of having to compete with a proprietary modified version of your own work. However, in some special situations it can be better to use a more permissive license." In other words if I make improvements, or modifications, I have to release my code. To make it even more clear:
"I want to distribute an extended version of a GPL-covered program in binary form. Is it enough to distribute the source for the original version?"
"No, you must supply the source code that corresponds to the binary. Corresponding source means the source from which users can rebuild the same binary."
However BSD licenses "allows proprietary use, and for the software released under the license to be incorporated into proprietary products. Works based on the material may be released under a proprietary license or as closed source software. This is the reason for widespread use of the BSD code in proprietary products, ranging from Juniper Networks routers to Mac OS X."
You are right in saying I was wrong about rights, "Sure there are rights being restricted", though. However as I said before BSD licenses offers freedom for programmers while the GPL offers freedom for users.
The problem from your perspective is that they aren't giving you all rights.
Nobody owes you a gift.
The BSD doesn't give any all the rights either. And I did not ask for a gift. Just as with the GPL the original programmer of BSDed software decides what rights other programmers and users have. If BSD code is open the programmer has given other programmers the right to close their own code modifications.
Related in a sense is dual licensing. Another thread on/. was about the effects MySQL had on the GPL using dual licensing, the GPL and closed source licensing. Especially now that Oracle now owns the former MySQL AB business.
Slashdot Mirror
It now turns out that the "anti-war" movement was really just against Bush. Notice the absence of mass protests as Obama continues Bush's policies, this time with a "surge" in Afghanistan
That may be true of some antiwar activists but not all. Iraq was no threat to the US, I'm still waiting to see the WMDs that would create mushroom clouds over US cities.
Now what most Americans probably don't know is that the US created the conditions for what happened in both Afghanistan and Iraq. When the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan the US aided and supplied the Mujahideen there. As they say Afghan was the Soviet's Vietnam. But after the Soviets withdrew so did the US. Some of the Mujahideen then became the Taliban while others the Northern Alliance. With Iraq, both Reagan and Bush Sr armed and supported Saddam. In 1988-89 congress debated imposing sanctions on military aid to Saddam after it was confirmed he used WMDs on Kurds, Marsh Arabs, and others in Iraq but both Reagan and Bush SR argued it was against America's interest to cut off aid. Before Saddam ordered the invasion of Kuwait he could do no wrong, but when he did order the invasion Bush turned on him. And why did Saddam order the invasion? Because Kuwait was slant drilling into an Iraqi oil field.
Don't tell me with a straight face that the media gave George W. Bush a "free pass" as that is absurd.
What is absurd is to say the media didn't give George W Bush a free pass. I didn't hear one reporter question the existence of those WMDs Bush stood on television claiming Saddam had. After none were found the media didn't bat an eye supporting Bush saying the invasion was about regime change and not about WMDs. Or the invasion of Afghanistan wasn't about capturing bin Laden. Again Bush stood on TV demanding the Taliban turn over bin Laden, "or else". When the Taliban asked for proof bin Laden had anything to do with 911 Bush beat his chest and ordered the invasion of Afghanistan.But when bin Laden wasn't captured the invasion was no longer about that. To deny this is to deny reality.
I'm sick to death of our hypocritical politicians, Democrat and Republican alike.
Same here.
Look for the biggest "throw the bums out" election results in American history this November.
I wish this were true but I seriously doubt it. Most American voters have short memories as well as suffer from "all of Congress sucks but my reps." I am somewhat hopeful Kennedy's seat going to a Republican means other incumbents, in both parties, will also lose their seats but I doubt it.
This is a golden opportunity to pass term limits for Congress as their favorable poll number is now a mere 11 percent.
I don't like what's going on but I don't like term limits either. Instead I propose a Constitutional Amendment like what Texas has. In Texas the legislature only meets in odd numbered years, not every year, and the session only lasts for 140 days. 140 days every other year? Now here's my proposal:
Amendment 28 - Limiting how long congress can be in session:
Congress shall only meet in odd numbered years for 3 months. The president can call for a special session but such session shall only deal with a single issue.
I also propose another amendment, Amendment 29 - Amendment 12 Repealed, how the President is Chosen.
Each candidate shall run for President in an election with Condorcet or ranked voting. The winner shall be President with the candidate in second place being the Vice President.
Falcon
Since most of our oil does NOT come from the mid east, and in fact it supplies China with more oil I find it hard to swallow the 'we are there for the oil' conspiracy.
I agree the US doesn't get much oil from the Mideast, the US's biggest supplier of oil is Canada and second is Mexico. However petroleum has a world wide market and if a supplier can get more money from somewhere else, oil will go there.
Actually that's why nothing was done about the genocide in Darfur, Sudan. Sudan exports a lot of oil to China and China didn't want to risk losing the oil. I don't know if you consider "BusinessWeek" to spread conspiracy theories but here's the article Oil for China, Guns for Darfur. That's the same problem with Iran, Iran supplies China with a lot of gas and China doesn't want to risk losing it. Directly from China, China, Iran sign biggest oil & gas deal. As long as a country supplies what it's supporters want it can get away with murder.
Falcon
http://www.greenoptimistic.com/2009/04/21/zenithsolar-solar-panels/
Solar thermal to heat water as your link bring up has a better payback period than solar PVs do for many people. Of course what has the quickest payback period is increasing insulation.
Falcon
We can also always create gold by nuclear fusion if there's no more to mine. That doesn't mean we'll never run out of gold in a practical sense.
Plastic and polymers were originally made from plants and as long as there are still bushes, trees, and vines growing we can make polymers and plastics from them.
Falcon
so it is still tied to oil.
No it's not. Biopolymers are produced by living organisms. The cellulose from trees can be used. The first plastics made were bioplastics from plants. Do you recall the old Cellophane plastic wrap for sandwiches? Made from wood cellulose. Eastman Kodak, the camera company, first used plant based plastic for it's cameras and film. Even today film is sometimes called "Cellulose".
Plant, cellulose, based plastics only fail by the wayside after DuPont was awarded patents on making plastic from petroleum in the mid 1930s.
Becoming cheap and widely popular may do more harm than good I fear.
Now this is a potential problem, forests could be cleared to plant plantations for polymers. However the products are compostable.
Falcon
Only because coal is subsidized and it is allowed to pass external costs to others.
If I could pay less than 10k and have a 10 year pay back time
You can pay less than that, you may or you may not find it worthwhile though. And today the payback period is less than 10 years. For residential systems New Jersey has a payback period of 1.5 years. "New York and Delaware are next in line with payback in 3-6 years, and California, Maryland, Massachusetts and Wisconsin all tied for fourth at seven years."
The fact that governments keep trying to shift this cost to individual households tells me that it just isn't worth it.
First, I'd rather taxpayers be subsidized before megacorporations are. What I really want is for the federal government to stop all subsidies and return the money back to taxpayers. Then allow them to decide what they will pay for themselves. As it is now though your electricity from coal and nuclear power is subsidized. Chevron's CEO agrees to lobby with Sierra Club to end coal subsidies. And here's Rep Edward Markey crowing about how My Climate Bill 'Has Huge Subsidies For Clean Coal! Huge!'. In that speech he lists some of the subsidies large power companies including coal and nuclear power get. It comes to tens of billions of dollars. If however you add up all the subsides geothermal, solar, wind and other alternative and renewable energy sources get, it doesn't add up to $! Billion.
Fact is is conventional energy sources are massively subsidized with taxpayer money.
Falcon
The ability to communicate and run your refrigerator in, say, a hurricane-induced blackout makes the system more valuable than simply what it can displace from your electric bill each month.
The problem with this, islanding, is that it's dangerous to utility workers. If the power from the utility comes out and workers are sent out for repairs they can get electrocuted. To prevent this the inverter has to disconnect from the grid. Grid-tie inverters are made to disconnect and turn off though. So if you still want power then a second inverter, or more, has to be used to connect the storage batteries to the building wiring with that one then feeding the grid-tie inverter.
A more efficient (and cheaper) technology would make a small solar power backup system closer to a gas generator as far as ease of use and energy density.
Some people use a small generator as their backup for when there's little sun and or wind. Converting the engine to run on alcohol or biodiesel allows you to make your own fuel for it.
Falcon
At the moment though, you typically get around 2% of the purchase-and-installation cost in payback a year,
No, the payback period is about 7 years, that is after 7 years you're getting "free energy".
Falcon
there are two possible reasons why a 10 year payback period might be too short.
1) Solar cells cost energy to produce.We would like to get at least as much energy back as we put in.
The Energy Returned on Energy Invested for Solar PVs is pretty good, the payback period is less than 10 years. A 1977 Solarex study found the payback period for energy was 6.4 years. And panels come with 20, 25, even 30 year warranties.
2) Solar cells cost money to produce. When the total life energy (KWH) produced is divided into the total cost, we arrive at the cost per KWH. We would like that cost to be lower than the local power utility supply cost.
Coal and nuclear power plants cost money to build, and without subsidies they may not be built. Want to see something ironic if not tragically funny? Watch and listen as Chevron's CEO agrees to lobby with Sierra Club to end coal subsidies as well as how Rep Edward Markey crows about how "My Climate Bill 'Has Huge Subsidies For Clean Coal! Huge!'" In his speech he also says how much nuclear and other energy industries get. While they get billions of dollars all of the subsidies for geothermal, solar, and wind add up to less than $1 Billion.
Falcon
I don't understand why the break-even time on solar has to be on the order of a handful of years for it to be economically feasible.
because often the life span on solar is not that long (relatively).
Solar panels are warrantied for 20, 25, even 30 years. With a payback period of 7 years you can replace panels before they fail and still save money.
Falcon
solar power can, just barely, make sense for an idealist.
Except the payback period in New Jersey is "1.5 years for residential systems. New York and Delaware are next in line with payback in 3-6 years, and California, Maryland, Massachusetts and Wisconsin all tied for fourth at seven years."
Falcon
if you invest in solar panels that generate 10 kWh of electricity on a bright shiny day when they are installed, they will probably only generate 8 kWh after 20 years.
New Jersey Offers Fastest Payback for Solar Systems. "In New Jersey, that wait time is 1.5 years for residential systems. New York and Delaware are next in line with payback in 3-6 years, and California, Maryland, Massachusetts and Wisconsin all tied for fourth at seven years."
Using 7 years, you can almost buy 3 new panel arrays in 20 years. Or using 13 years you'll be on your second set of panels in 20 years.
Falcon
Because if the solar panels only last for 20 years (optimistically) and it takes 20 years to recoup the cost, you're not getting anywhere.
PVs are warrantied 20, 25, even 30 years yet their payback period can be 7 years. With a payback period of 7 years if your PVs last 30 years you get 23 years of energy free. Well not totally free, maintenance is still needed.
Nuclear plants and hydro dams are built to last a good bit longer than their break even time.
They are only built if they are subsidized first. Actually government officials in China, France, India, and Russia not private investors, decide what is built. Nuclear power appeals to state planners, not market actors.
Falcon
you are worth more to the banks as an energy consumer than as an energy producer.
Solar power in cities
Off grid solar power
Solar power for rural properties
Falcon
most poeple dont stay in the one home for 20+ years, so it's very hard to justify the investment.
Except installed solar increases the value of the house. If you live in a house a few years and have solar panels installed when you move in, when you leave it will be mostly paid for and you get more from the sell. This is even more true in California with it's high electricity costs.
If they can get the costs down, more poeple will buy this, just like solar how water and insulation.
Actually of these the first step should be to insulate more, increasing insulation has the quickest payback. And in many places solar thermal or hot water also pays back faster than solar PVs. Solar power may heat water someplace that doesn't get enough sunlight to provide electricity.
Falcon
1. total cost (panels are expensive
Coal fired and nuclear power plants aren't expensive? Neither coal companies nor the nuclear power industry have their hands out begging for government assistance? Cost Is Chief Barrier to 'Clean Coal' and the Nuclear power industry is Hooked on Subsidies. "Nuclear power appeals to state planners, not market actors."
2. the Return on Investment is low (extreme cases - 10 years, but typically more than 20).
The payback period can be much shorter than that. In one survey New Jersey had a payback period of 1.5 years. New York had a payback period of 3 years and Delaware 6 for residential applications.
Falcon
The problem with current panels isn't the efficiency. More efficiency is welcome but the real problem with solar panels is the cost. It takes too many years to recoup the very heavy initial investment. If the price can be made such that the panels pay for themselves with 2 or 3 years then they make solar power a real alternative to the grid.
No the initial cost isn't a problem either. The problem is people's expectation. They want it paid off last year. Think the coal or nuclear power plant has been paid off after 10 years? Without subsidies they may never be paid for. Here's an investment opportunity in Southern Africa with a minimum expected payback period of 25 years.
Falcon
I've observed that traditional solar cells produce the highest output when the panels are cool. If these perform the same way, using them to heat water or something else to draw off excess heat might be necessary to achieve maximum electrical generation.
Heating water may be a bonus, or, plain and simply better. Solar thermal, hot water, systems work better in some places than PVs do.
Falcon
Solar PV is roughly 20x-100x more expensive than coal or nuclear power.
Really? Did you also subtract the subsidies coal and nuclear power get? Yes, they both get subsidized as well.
If I was Obama, I'd toss a billion or so at this scientist and see if he couldn't get mass production of it up and running.
Ah if only... If I were President of the USA I'd veto all subsidies and let a freer market pick winners and losers. As it is now venture capitalists have been investing in different technologies for years, from Sergey Brin and Larry Page investing in Nanosolar to Elon Musk, founder of Paypal and CEO of SpaceX, investing in Tesla Motors.
I mean, as long as we're spending billionS keeping teachers temporarily employed (because their states can't afford them right now), right?
I hate it that the feds have to give the states the money but it was the feds who mandated a bunch of new regulations with No Child Left Behind and other laws. If the feds stayed within it's Constitutional limits federal taxes could be significantly reduced if not totally eliminate the federal income tax. States and local governments could then raise their own taxes if they so chose to. Of course that's only part of the problem. States like California went on a spending spree during the roaring '90s. Then when the economy tanked they lost a lot of revenue. Then there's CA's teachers unions. Try to fire an underperforming teacher and watch the years speed by before they are fired. About the only way to fight the unions is by allowing school choice with charter and private schools getting matching funding. Then watch as the bad public schools are emptied out so the teachers can be fired.
Falcon
If the panels were free (as in beer), but the costs of a home installation cost $10,000 (what it would cost in my area), it would not be worth it from a purely economic point of view.
Ah, I smell something potentially good. You may not be interested but for someone with the proclivity and ability to learn that may be a good field to get into. It's one of those "green jobs", installation.
Falcon
Which is still pretty big news. Right now, the biggest problem with PV panels is the high cost.
Yea the upfront costs are higher but over their lifetime they save money and energy. However you can, er could before the economic meltdown, have the cost of a solar energy system rolled into the cost of your house and therefore be part of the mortgage. Because they, solar energy systems, reduce living costs some mortgage lenders gave borrowers larger loans to pay for the systems.
As I see it because the systems pay for their costs, as to whether a solar energy system is a good buy, "investment", rests on a couple of others considerations. One is will the buyer feel better about it, and is that worth it? Another is whether the opportunity cost, if instead money was invested, is higher or lower. If you don't mind feeding the power company and environmental issues aren't of any concern then would you invest the cost of the solar system into financial instruments and what is the return on them?
Falcon
My current Saturn is an 01, and when I get washed the panels look new. Still runs great.
My Saturn is a 2000 and while most of the panels are fine a few weeks ago I slipped on ice and slid into another car. We both pulled over and looked at the damage, there was none on the car I hit but the my car's fender cracked and broke off. I bet the body of the car I hit was metal and if mine had been it probably would have been fine too. If not, a dent in metal is easy to pull out but the fender should be replaced because it is plastic. Using twine I tied it up but I'm concerned about the twine breaking then the fender falling down under the tire while driving.
Falcon
When was the last time you find any plastic that can last 10 years under the sun?
My Saturn is almost that old and I found out the body is plastic, at least the fenders are. When I was driving I slipped on ice and into another car. There wasn't a mark on that car but my fender cracked and broke off. "Broke off"? At least if it had been metal I could have pulled out the dent but now the whole fender has to be replaced.
I've also got other plastic items even older that are still good.
Falcon
The only remaining question (I didn't see anything about it in TFA) is how durable this stuff is compared to the current panels.
No, there's another question. That is can these solar arrays be commercially and economically produced? While it sounds good too often hardly anything comes out onto the market when there's an announcement like this.
Falcon
Sure there are rights being restricted. If you use GPL code you can not close your own code and still distribute it.
I'm afraid you sound a bit confused about this. If you apply the GPL to your own code, you certainly do have the right to close it and distribute it. All copyright holders have that right.
I'm not confused at all. If I modify BSDed code then distribute it I can close my code but I can not close my own code and distribute it when I modify GPL code. From GNU: "Using the GNU GPL will require that all the released improved versions be free software. This means you can avoid the risk of having to compete with a proprietary modified version of your own work. However, in some special situations it can be better to use a more permissive license." In other words if I make improvements, or modifications, I have to release my code. To make it even more clear:
"I want to distribute an extended version of a GPL-covered program in binary form. Is it enough to distribute the source for the original version?"
"No, you must supply the source code that corresponds to the binary. Corresponding source means the source from which users can rebuild the same binary."
However BSD licenses "allows proprietary use, and for the software released under the license to be incorporated into proprietary products. Works based on the material may be released under a proprietary license or as closed source software. This is the reason for widespread use of the BSD code in proprietary products, ranging from Juniper Networks routers to Mac OS X."
You are right in saying I was wrong about rights, "Sure there are rights being restricted", though. However as I said before BSD licenses offers freedom for programmers while the GPL offers freedom for users.
The problem from your perspective is that they aren't giving you all rights.
Nobody owes you a gift.
The BSD doesn't give any all the rights either. And I did not ask for a gift. Just as with the GPL the original programmer of BSDed software decides what rights other programmers and users have. If BSD code is open the programmer has given other programmers the right to close their own code modifications.
Related in a sense is dual licensing. Another thread on /. was about the effects MySQL had on the GPL using dual licensing, the GPL and closed source licensing. Especially now that Oracle now owns the former MySQL AB business.
Falcon