Reply With Quote
It's all about energy density.
That's why we will never abandon oil and nuclear.
It's all about energy density.
That's why we will never abandon oil and nuclear.
Reminds me of George Carlin's routine on why he worships the sun.
You're clueless. It is impossible for Nuclear or Oil to power this whole world. Solar can be placed on roofs, can be mobile, and can take up localized production with space already allocated.
And according to these projections, its going to do so fairly cheaply fairly soon.
Good read.
Good read. I have always said that solar, both passive and active is a great LOCAL solution. It's a terrible grid solution, however. Unfortunately politicians always focus on grid solutions because thats where the money is.
Well, in the case of solar, it looks like the cost is halving every 10 years. Not comparable. Compare that to cost per megabyte instead of chip densities, and he comparisons are even farther apart.
I wonder if they get kickbacks from the power companies?
The issue is really about fostering dependence. A self sufficient family unit both in energy and food is damned hard to control.
I agree, and it's also why congress wont approve ideas like HR-1.
Too many authoritarians in congress.
That assumes that past rates will remain the same.
I think that there is a very good chance that the increased amount of research will drive the trend to accelerate sharply.
What do these trends mean for the future? If the 7 percent decline in costs continues (and 2010 and 2011 both look likely to beat that number), then in 20 years the cost per watt of PV cells will be just over 50 cents.
Indications are that the projections above are actually too conservative. First Solar corporation has announced internal production costs (though not consumer prices) of 75 cents per watt, and expects to hit 50 cents per watt in production cost in 2016. If they hit their estimates, they’ll be beating the trend above by a considerable margin.
That's still a long ways away. I still say let the marketplace develop solar when it's cost effective for them.
In thumbing around for this, I found an interesting website that shows current estimated costs per energy type:
http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directo..._Kilowatt-Hour
With a new "gee whiz" technology listed:
http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Cold_Energy_LLC
WC is like a re ed parrot who hears nothing but stupid catch phrases and doesn't bother with context.
You're clueless. It is impossible for Nuclear or Oil to power this whole world. Solar can be placed on roofs, can be mobile, and can take up localized production with space already allocated.
And according to these projections, its going to do so fairly cheaply fairly soon.
Do you not know what density means?
Why do you lib s not understand the right way to fund things? Now if you want to donate money to such things, then start a foundation, and collect money from like minded individuals, and support your ideals. Just stop expecting the entire nation of tax payers to willingly spend tax dollars on your cause. Our nation is outspending revenues, so such pet project financing needs to cease.
Squawk Squawk Squawk.
I know that density doesn't matter for the reasons I posted above.
Isn't that the aim of the article though? To show that the energy density of solar is coming to rival that of fossil fuels?
Energy companies really don't care about the medium they're peddling. They just want to have a controlling share of that market, whatever might be producing the energy.
This is true, and when someone in industry see it as viable to be the one to try solar investments, they will, without subsidies.
Subsidies amounts to politicians picking winners and losers.
Your knee-jerk dislike of environmental advocates and seeming su ion of green energy has led you to equate what is quite arguably some of the most important R & D that an advanced civilization can undertake with that of multi-million dollar bridges serving a few hundred people.Cognitive bias is a general term that is used to describe many distortions in the human mind that are difficult to eliminate and that lead to perceptual distortion, inaccurate judgment, or illogical interpretation
That would seem to me to easily qualify as "perceptual distortion, inaccurate judgment, or illogical interpretation"
From a simple cost/benefit perspective, the potential overall collective return on investment is enormous.
We will fund a lot of losers, but in all the crowd, we will discover paradigm-changing technologies.
Cutting vital funding in response to short-term budget crisis, especially given the scope of the funding versus the scope of the overall crisis, is like a farmer eating his seed corn.
It seems to me to be downright un-American to sacrifice funding for hard science in response to temporary problems.
The military housing on base here has solar panels. Makes sense in Hawaii.
Don't we spend gov't money offsetting the "true" cost of gasoline? I remember hearing that somewhere.
Yes, the closer you get to the equator, the more energy you have per square meter.
If so, we shouldn't.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
