I was at a luncheon Thursday featuring Al Gore....

[rateyes]

(got a pic with Rosalyn Carter who was sitting at the table next to mine...but, that's my ego talking :D)

He said that if we put up solar panels covering just 90 square miles somewhere in the desert area of the Southwest U.S. that we could capture enough energy from the sun to power the entire country.

WOW! Think about that. How many square miles of solar panels would it require to power just the state in which you live?

Which state is going to be the first to step up to the plate and build the 1, 2, or 3 square miles of solar panels to power their state---and, rid ourselves of all the burning of fossil fuels---requiring that all homes go "electric" for heat and cooling?

Or what will be the first major university in this country to build a solar power station on their campus to show their state and their country that it can be done, and that it will pay for itself in terms of power bills, and a lot less pollution?

How many of us who own homes will install the solar panels on our roofs?

We have an opportunity here that doesn't require us to bitch and complain to the government. We can just decide to DO IT.

Time to put our money where our mouths are on this one.

[Angela Shelley]

1. Every solar panel is a peace sign

:hippie:

[rateyes]

5. That's a great line.

Ought to be a bumpersticker.

[conscious evolution]

35. Bumper sticker I saw recently

A solution comes up every morning.

I it thought was pretty cool.

[krkaufman]

46. "And every night", too. (tidal) : ) n/t

[trueblue2007]

73. Here is a good bumpersticker ~~AL GORE FOR PRESIDENT 2008~~

[conscious evolution]

75. He got my write in vote today.

[dorkulon]

90. That would only alienate the people we have to convince.

The last thing we want to do is to further associate clean energy with anything people think of as 'hippie-ish.' Virtually the entire left is already on board with solar/wind power; the people we need to persuade are likely to be turned off by peace signs and the like. A better slogan would be "Solar power is just smart" or something along those lines. Or even "defeat the terrorists, buy a solar panel."

[eridani]

40. Bingo!

Please make that an original post--really great!

[TrogL]

2. you might be able to capture the energy, but you still need to get it where it's needed

Powerlines have a certain amount of loss.

[Tyler Durden]

6. If they'd lose 15% (a lot less really)...

Then go to 105 square miles to make up the difference.

Not doing it because it's not PERFECT is an idea I think we need to drop like a hot rock.

[foxer]

12. Use a million rooftops

[rateyes]

15. There you go.

That would work.

[Hekate]

48. That would really decentralize energy production -- I like it. nt

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

3. Incredible - Let's do it!

That's a relatively small area. San Bernardino County in California, which is largely empty desert has over 20,000 square miles of space. If the government doesn't have the impulse to do it, maybe private citizens by the tens of thousands could get together and move this forward, collectively buying the land and the panels.

[rateyes]

4. That's exactly what I said when he made the statement:

"Let's do it."

Why not?

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

9. I'd rather spend $2000 on something like this than on some politician's campaign

This would be direct action by the people NOW, instead of waiting years for politicians to take action. Think of an America where we are no longer completely dependant on fossil fuels and where we can run our cars and our homes on green technology. It would be revolutionary.

[rateyes]

And, would keep us out of wars for oil. nt

[krkaufman]

47. Here's my thought.... a nationwide electric cooperative ...

... that people could put money into and buy a chunk of a solar plant. Their electric bills, however their energy is generated, would be offset by the electric production of their portion of the solar plant. Additional payments would need to be made for upkeep, or the upkeep would simply be accounted for when determining their "portion" of the plant. This would also solve the problem for those people who's homes are not amenable to solar or wind power.

[Lorien]

101. We all know the reasons why not:

1). Fossil fuel profits

2). Those who control the world's energy control the world

3). the military Industrial complex thrives on conflicts over resources



Our planet will die for the wealth and power of a tiny minority.

[XemaSab]

56. You'd have to do an EIR/EIS and all manner of biological surveys

This gets expensive fast.

[flyarm]

7. my uncle did it on his house and business..my husband says we will do it in the spring..

it is a big outlay at first..but it finally pays for itself down the road..you just have to know you will not be moving any time soon..or it doesn't pay for itself.

fly

[rateyes]

10. I hear that. Wouldn't it be great, though, if whole communities

did it at one location? Make every house solar, and paid for with taxes, which will begin to be reimbursed after the savings are realized and the power companies make the buybacks?

[flyarm]

33. atlantic city put in a bunch of wind mills...to power casino lights and power..it can be done!

[conscious evolution]

36. It pays off immediately

Every watt generated by solar is one less watt generated with fossil fuel or nuke power.

Looking at it in terms of long term recoup cost is another idea that needs to be dropped like a hot rock.

[flyarm]

41. thats easy to say but out lay on my house in cash is $30,000.00

i know i had the company already give me the estimates..and it could go up to $40,000. depending on how many panels it takes.

fly

[Hekate]

49. I was told it would be $20K for my house, which we would never break even on...

I'd love to be able to install solar panels on our home, and I'm sure a lot of others would too, but the government has to sincerely make it feasible for us masses, which they so far have not done.

Hekate

[foxer]

53. Cost are coming way down recently, new technology

Solar Cells are being printed on film now, and paints are coming. Storage seems to be moving from batteries to capacitors.

[Hekate]

55. I like the news of those advances a lot. Thanks for passing it along. nt

[midnight]

8. This is the stuff that makes so much sense. Think about all

the lifes in the middle east if we put up a solar panels in the desert. Let's get moving America. Let's bring our children home from this nightmare.

[rateyes]

13. What better "pro-life" statement could be made? nt

[supernova]

11. Is there enough room on the Salt Flats?

We don't use the Flats for anything except land speed records and space shuttle landings.

Is there room for both?

[rateyes]

14. There's room somewhere, I'm sure.

Mojave desert? nt

[foxer]

16. Nanosolar in Ca has cost less than $1/watt

[redqueen]

17. The next Dem president needs to make this a top priority...

like Dennis started saying years ago... make it a mission on par with putting a man on the moon.

If every rooftop was fitted with solar panels... every new house, every new building... imagine.

[supernova]

18. I'm thinking about solar roof tiles

because I need to replace my roof soon.

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

19. Make it a new Cabinet position

with Al Gore appointed with the task of making the US green and solarizing the country.

[lutefisk]

31. Get rid of DHS to make room for the new agency

"making the US green and solarizing the country" will make the USA and the world one hell of a lot safer than anything the cronies and Republican loyalists at DHS have done.

[hunter]

74. Hell, get rid of the Department of Defense too.

No Navy, no Marines, no Army, no Air Force. Send them all back to civilian life, and recycle all their war toys.

Maybe we'd think twice about getting into firefights in places we don't belong if all we had was the Coast Guard, and a National Guard paid for and answerable to their State Governments and not the Feds.

If U.S. Presidents didn't have all these military guys strutting around and saluting them as "Commander in Chief" maybe they wouldn't be so cocky.

Eliminating the DoD would free up resources that could be used to reduce and eventually eliminate our dependence on fossil fuels.

[divineorder]

97. I Agree

DHS is a complete waste of money. They need terrorists to justify their budget. Give their functions back to the agencies that are experienced in espionage, law enforcement and the like. Just create a board to coordinate intelligence and make strategy and let the rest go.

If we spend the money we need to on solar and wind we end the corruption and payoffs to entrenched dictatorial powers that suppress political reform in the Middle East and elsewhere. The suppression and the lack of real economic development means that a lot of bright people see no future and therefore are drawn to the radical groups.Deprived of this money, the leadership in those countries would be forced to let people make money in a variety of ways, and spend money on human capital. This would open up things in a way that would give people hope and opportunity.
This could do a lot more for Homeland Security than all the expenditures for the Department

[rateyes]

23. Sure would be a better use of our money in trying to end

wars for oil.

[lutefisk]

29. I am not very hopeful that Clinton or Obama will make it a priority

Just one of the reasons it is devastating to so many of us that Gore decided not to run.
:hi:

[Dukkha]

20. and thanks to global warming there's no shortage of solar energy

how ironic

I have always advocated lining the roofs of high rise buildings with solar panels to power them. You could save a fortune on energy in metropolitan cities by coveting the buildings to solar power. I'm glad to see they are really making an effort to promote solar energy again. Maybe the panels Reagan took off the white house can be found and reinstalled again.

[troubleinwinter]

26. An interesting subject is 'Global Dimming'.

Global dimming is the gradual reduction in the amount of global direct irradiance at the Earth's surface that was observed for several decades after the start of systematic measurements in 1950s. It is thought to have been caused by an increase in particulates such as sulfur aerosols in the atmosphere due to human action. The effect varies by location, but worldwide it has been estimated to be of the order of a 4% reduction over the three decades from 1960–1990. The trend reversed during the past decade. Global dimming has interfered with the hydrological cycle by reducing evaporation and may have caused droughts in some areas. Global dimming also creates a cooling effect that may have partially masked the effect of greenhouse gases on global warming.

Large scale changes in weather patterns may also have been caused by global dimming. Climate models speculatively suggest that this reduction in sunshine at the surface may have led to the failure of the monsoon in sub-Saharan Africa during the 1970s and 1980s, together with the associated famines such as the Sahel drought, caused by Northern hemisphere pollution cooling the Atlantic. Because of this, the Tropical rain belt may not have risen to its northern latitudes, thus causing an absence of seasonal rains. This claim is not universally accepted and is very difficult to test.

It is also concluded that the imbalance between global dimming and global warming at the surface leads to weaker turbulent heat fluxes to the atmosphere. This means globally reduced evaporation and hence precipitation occur in a dimmer and warmer world, which could ultimately lead to a more humid atmosphere in which it rains less. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_dimming

[Dukkha]

32. That could explain the record winters we've been having

here in Ohio we essentially don't have a spring anymore and winter lasts up to 6 months then immediately goes into really hot summers.

[troubleinwinter]

37. Interesting that dealing with Global Warming, but not Global Dimming can make things worse!

Where I live, in the mountains a mile high in Arizona, we're into our 12th year of drought. I watch every single drop of water.

The mature pine trees are stressed to the point they are succumbing to the beetles that they'd otherwise fight off, and are dying in huge numbers.

I hate to attract or divert wildlife from their natural foods, but I put out grapes and carrots to give them some moisture. They so stressed. I guess if a few cottontails live, they'll eventually feed a coyote, or a deer a mountain lion. They are all stressed.

[foxer]

52. Also effects evaporation, hence the droughts

[B2G]

87. The droughts are due to La Nina. N/T

[troubleinwinter]

21. A few examples. More are being palnned and built.

California to get world's largest solar farm
Posted Jul 9th 2007 8:22PM by Joshua Topolsky

Cleantech America, a San Francisco based developer, has launched a project to build the world's largest solar farm, giving this Spanish solar tower a run for its money, as well as insulting the work of countless Tesco engineers and their puny, insignificant solar roof. When completed in 2011, the 80-megawatt spread of solar panels will cover roughly 640 acres and be 17 times the size of the largest US solar farm in existence. The project, which will generate enough power for nearly 21,000 homes, will be sold to the Kings River Conservation District, a public agency that purchases power for 12 cities and two counties in California's Central Valley. The company hopes that a solar farm of this size will be an industry-wide tipping point for energy providers, and will drive the cost of solar energy downward. Meanwhile, Tesco and Spain will be plotting their sublime revenge.

Solar Plant Planned In California Desert

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - The California Energy Commission on Thursday approved a 25-year contract between Solel Inc and Pacific Gas & Electric for power generated from a 554-megawatt solar thermal power plant in the Mojave Desert to come on line by January 1, 2011.

The Mojave Solar Park will be the largest solar thermal power plant in the world when its completed, PG&E said when the project was announced in July.
....
Concentrated solar power (CSP) is seen by its advocates as a way to make relatively cheap utility-scale renewable power without creating carbon dioxide emissions, which are by far the leading source of climate changing greenhouse gases.

The Mojave Solar Park is to cover 6,000 acres (2,428 hectares). It will have 1.2 million mirrors and 317 miles of vacuum tubing.

Solel uses solar thermal parabolic trough technology. The mirrors concentrate the sun's light on receivers that contain fluid that turns to steam to spin turbines that make electricity.

Solar thermal power is able to make electricity at utility-scale which solar photovoltaic plants cannot.

World's Largest Solar Farm Taking Root in New Mexico Desert
May 2, 2006
Reporting by Roddy Scheer

Two start-up companies backed by venture capital are teaming up with the state of New Mexico to build the world's largest solar power farm on 3,200 acres of mostly public land near the Mexican border. The proposed facility would be 60 times larger than the world's biggest currently operating solar farm in Germany's Bavaria region.

The two Phoenix, Arizona-based start-ups, New Solar Ventures and Solar Torx, are operating the endeavor as a joint venture. New Solar Ventures is spearheading the technical build-out of the solar farm, which includes the construction of an on-site factory to produce thousands of 10-foot by 5-foot solar panels. Meanwhile, Solar Torx is in charge of raising the $1.5 billion or so needed to get the project up and running.

Meanwhile, the state of New Mexico is doing its part by providing a sweetheart deal on the leasing of 640 state-owned acres in the desert near the town of Deming for the project. The state expects to lease more land to the endeavor at favorable rates as the facility grows.

Company representatives, state officials, and environmentalists alike are optimistic that the venture can generate as much as 300 megawatts of energy--enough to power about 240,000 homes--within five years, as long as funding is in place.

Solargenix's 64 MW concentrated solar power plant which will be operational in 2007 in Boulder City, Nevada. This solar plant will be the largest solar electric power plant to be built globally in the past 14 years and it will be the third largest solar power plant in the world generating power for more than 150,000 Nevada consumers.

Slideshow: Huge Solar Plants Bloom in Desert
See related story: Huge Solar Plants Bloom in Desert
11.15.05 | 2:00 AM
This giant Stirling Energy Systems dish captures solar energy and concentrates it to drive a Stirling engine and produce electricity.
http://www.wired.com/science/planetearth/multimedia/2005/11/69528?slide=2&slideView=2


(artists's depiction)

[rateyes]

24. That's what I'm talking about. This needs to happen

everywhere. Goal--no fossil fuel burning for powering homes and other buildings by 2020.

[tinrobot]

22. SW Arizona has a 2900 sq mile gunnery range

The Barry Goldwater range occupies almost 1.9 million acres and takes up the entire SW corner of the state. It's more than enough land to power the entire nation, plus it's one of the sunniest spots in the country.

Wouldn't shutting down this military base and installing solar power be a great swords to plowshares gesture?

[rateyes]

25. We are the ones we've been waiting for. Let's get 'er done. nt

[troubleinwinter]

28. There are gov't lands and BLM lands all over Arizona, Nevada and Mojave Desert, Calif.

[tinrobot]

30. I like the idea of converting military bases.

The Twentynine Palms marine base in the Mohave desert would be another great site.

So would the old Nellis nuclear test range in Nevada.

[redqueen]

96. LOVE your sig.

:hi:

[Lorien]

102. It would indeed. But it would be best to have a number of solar farms

throughout the country so that we aren't dependent on just one. Climate change will give us natural disasters aplenty, so we'll also need them in several different regions.

[shanti]

27. i would love to have solar panels

unfortunately....$$$! as an aside, i was driving up in the (sierra) foothills last week and noticed a new housing development where EVERY house had solar panels on the roof. THAT'S what should be happening with all new construction, imo!

[troubleinwinter]

34. It is becoming more common in new home building in some areas,

notably in desert areas.

There's "retro" building, too. My husband designed and submitted an upgrade/refurbishment project design to a Calif city (north of SF) to remodel the community/swim center, with all solar heating & using all green materials (a LEED standards project). More expensive at the front end, extra expense would recoup after 5 years, and SAVE money thereafter.

The mayor is quite enthused. She has tried to convince home developers to build solar homes in the town. All she could squeeze out of them was 5% 'solar-ready' homes!

People need to start DEMANDING solar in new homes. Cities and counties need to start requiring solar in new home developments, along with Xeriscape and native plant landscaping (that conserves water and protects the environment), instead of lawns.

When solar is more common in new homes, sellers of older homes will install solar in order to attract buyers, rather than remodeling bathrooms.

Remember when recycling was unheard of? Now many mucicipalities mandate streetside recycling.

The Navajo Nation in northern Arizona is beginning individual solar and wind power programs for homes... an area that has relied on coal heating.

[Cleita]

38. Wow! I remember writing him letters about it when

he was running for President in 2000. It was my suggestion for how to use the surplus that Clinton was leaving us. I suggested that the surplus be used to help owners of houses and buildings to put solar panels up on reverse meters to help create electricity in place of the nuclear generating plants that I felt should be retired. He must have read my letters!

:bounce::loveya:

[Turn CO Blue]

39. K, B & R

[Art_from_Ark]

42. Another reason to dislike Ronald Reagan

Jimmy Carter had helped to set up a system where people would get tax breaks for installing alternative means for generating electricity (like windmills and solar power), and people could even sell their excess power to the grid! And one of the first things Pruneface did when he got in was to get rid of it.

[krkaufman]

50. hear! hear!

That should be one of the first things a new Administration puts BACK in place, both for practical *and* political reasons. It'd be a great signal that we're turning the boat back around.

[blm]

43. Big recommend here!!!

.

[Octafish]

45. It sure would provide a lot of jobs.

Maybe, if we're lucky, they'll be here at home.

[puebloknot]

44. I've read that people with a wind generator, for instance...

...can generate energy for their own use, and sell their excess to a local power grid. I've heard there may be complaints about wind generators (for example in the condo unit where I live ;) ), but why *couldn't* we do some kind of cooperative where each of us buys a very small plot of land, generate the energy, and sell it back to the power producers.

Of course, if we do that, they'll come up with some kind of draconian charge for our saving the world. In California, years ago, we were all urged to use less electricity, so we did! And then they raised our rates because they lost revenue over our lower usage!

This solar thing is really exciting. How do we start a grassroots movement to do this? Any ideas?

[earth mom]

51. Go Gore! nt

[grace0418]

54. What about putting them on the roofs of every huge flat building such as malls, schools,

factories, office buildings, etc.? The buildings are already there taking up space, and their rooflines aren't interesting or beautiful. They're just flat and industrial. If the government paid for the panels and the installation, and gave the businesses a tax break for agreeing to do it as well as making sure they are maintained, it could be a win-win situation for everyone (except big oil).

[Wednesdays]

57. But...but...but...that would mean free electrical power!

That's SOCIALISM!!! (gasp)

Can't have that, ya know. :eyes:


:sarcasm:

[XemaSab]

58. Not to be a downer here but it's not that simple

First of all, the desert is not "waste land," it's a fragile ecosystem that IS covered under environmental rules and regulations.

Secondly, solar panels are one of the more expensive and inefficient means of generating electricity. Solar thermal would be cheaper and more practical, but would still have problems.

Thirdly, look at that artist's conception above. In order to have 9,000 square miles of solar panels you'd need to totally destroy 30, 40, or 50 thousand square miles of desert habitat as surely as if you paved it over. See point 1 for details.

Fourthly, there isn't that kind of solar panel production capacity in the world. If we ramped up production and made more panels, that would take a lot of energy that we currently don't really have.

I'm sure there's a fifth point somewhere too, but there are reasons why this isn't done.

[conscious evolution]

60. I will gladly trade

a few hundred square miles of desert for this: http://images.google.com/images?q=Smoke+stacks&sourceid=ie7&rls=com.microsoft:en-

[hunter]

88. I'd fight you for that desert.

But I won't have to. Mother Nature is a bitch.

[LSK]

63. 5th - energy transport

I dont see how a solar array in Arizona would keep the lights on in Boston.

[XemaSab]

69. I know how! I know how!

Huge high-tension transmission lines that require their own environmental reports! :D

[conscious evolution]

82. High tension lines are already in place

and I would bet that these new plants are located very close to existing lines.

[XemaSab]

84. There aren't enough

and more will need to be built.

I worked on one of these projects. Trust me.

[conscious evolution]

85. I call bs.

What project and where?
You are starting to sound like a power company shill.

[XemaSab]

86. Um, Solel's 553 MW solar thermal facility near Barstow

http://www.pge.com/news/news_releases/q3_2007/070725a.html

I mapped the habitats for that area and the associated new power lines.

Satisfied? :shrug:

[conscious evolution]

91. So you do work for a power company.

Thought so.

[XemaSab]

104. No, I used to work for a company that does environmental consulting for power companies

Big difference.

[conscious evolution]

105. Not familiar with PG&E

But the power company around here would make sure any report coming from an 'independant' firm would say what they want it to say.If you know what I mean.

Please say it ain't so with PG&E.

[XemaSab]

106. Here's the deal:

The major project impacts would be loss of habitat, water use, and potantial impacts to tortoises.

PG&E is not going to be able to get around discussing these impacts, and mitigating for the mitigable ones. Even an EarthFirster would agree that outside loss of a small amount of habitat there aren't any unmitigable impacts, so it's not about PG&E putting a fast one over on anybody. It's about PG&E fulfilling their required renewable energy quotas.

As a consultant, it's not my job to do whatever PG&E wants. It's my job to write a report outlining the potential impacts to the environment of the proposed action. I consider myself an honest biologist, and moreover I think this is kind of a cool project and the benefits to society outweigh the potential loss of habitat.

The patch of desert involved in this solar thermal facility isn't that big, but a 90x90 mile area is huge, and there would be significant impacts.

I'm not against renewable energy, but I am a realist and I think penny for penny we can come up with better solutions than solar panels. This is also the consensus view of most of the solar experts that I have worked with. Solar thermal, for example, seems like a much less flaky technology.

[conscious evolution]

107. I'm satisfied now

Nice to know Cali has better standards then the south.

Heres one for you.The thermal collector photos posted upthread look a lot like the type invented and patented by a friend of my father.

[XemaSab]

72. Oh, and I almost forgot-- sixth

It takes an UNGODLY amount of water to wash the things. :(

[conscious evolution]

77. I would bet it is a lot less

than is being currently used in coal powered steam generation plants.Nor will it 'glow in the dark' like the water used in nuke plants.

[Nihil]

89. Ah ...

... a "glow in the dark" type ... that explains some of the earlier posts ...

You are quite right that cleaning the vast expanse of glass would
consume less than the corresponding number of coal-fired, gas-fired,
oil-fired and possibly even nuclear-"fired" power stations but most of
the others are explicitly *not* sited in a desert for that very reason.

Now where did you want to put this mega-PV site again?

[conscious evolution]

92. Preferably on existing buildings

But I will settle for just about anyplace that gets plenty of unobstructed sunlight.
Yes there will be an enviromental impact but I will take a project that has only limited,localized impact over a plant that spews millions of tons of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere or a plant whose waste is dangerous for tens of thousands of years anyday.

[conscious evolution]

95. The Savannah River Nuclear Plant

has a lot of radioactive waste they can't get rid of.
Can they store it in your backyard?

[conscious evolution]

76. The electrical grid in this country

is cross connected.
Power can be sent to any place from any generating station.

[LSK]

78. 3000 miles??????

:shrug:

[conscious evolution]

81. 3000 miles is nothing.

When you are dealing with something that operates at the speed of light.
The only thing that makes sending power long distance problematic is the resistance in the wire.And at the voltages power is transmitted this not really a problem.Distribution and transmission engineers worked that problem out decades ago.
Thank Nicolai Tesla for that.Edison wanted to wire the country with DC voltage.Tesla knew there would be major problems with this approach and championed the AC voltage we use today.

I would bet that these new generating plants are located very close to existing high tension transmission lines.

[lurky]

59. Are you sure he was talking about solar PANELS?

I have heard about similar proposals in the desert (Mohave, Death Valley, etc) using solar thermal collectors. These are basically parabolic dishes that focus sunlight onto a Stirling engine, which uses the heat to run. The Stirling engine turns a generator, and voila!, electricity.

The technology is there, and you could use 90 sq miles (9 miles x 9 miles) to power the whole country. The #1 problem is the expense of building all these solar collectors is huge (I heard someone estimate over a trillion dollars once). The second problem is that we would have to sacrifice a big chunk of protected wilderness.

People are definitely working on it, though. Here are some interesting Wikipedia articles:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_thermal_energy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_plants_in_the_Mojave_Desert

[XemaSab]

61. Basic math check:

90 square miles is WHAT by WHAT? :shrug: :P

[LSK]

64. 9.4868329805051379959

:hi:

[lurky]

65. The square root of 90 is

9.486832980505138 and change, if you want to be all precise about it. :P

[XemaSab]

66. Or you could say 9x10

:P

[LSK]

67. but then its not a perfect square and it would not work

Since we are taking this post so literally!

:popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn:

[lurky]

68. I would prefer a 900 mile strip of land

a tenth of a mile wide. How 'bout that?

[Lorien]

100. The war in Iraq is said to ultimately cost 2.4 TRILLION dollars

so solar farms would be a bargain by comparison. Plus, the project would put large numbers of Americans back to work. As for the Wilderness; that's roughly the size of four Manhattans. How much wilderness has ALREADY been sacrificed to fossil fuel exploration and collection? How much of the natural world is dying off from climate change?

[GliderGuider]

62. Does anyone here understand the difference between "90 square miles" and "90 miles square"?

This proposal has been floating around for a while, and it's about covering a 90 mile square with solar panels, not 90 square miles. The area under discussion is almost 10,000 square miles of desert ecosystem.

There are reasons it hasn't been done. It's stupidly expensive, logistically unfeasible and ecologically catastrophic. Solar power may make some sense in some places for some applications, but the idea of powering your whole nation with them is, um, "not ready for prime time".

[hunter]

79. I doubt we could cover 90 miles square with ordinary window glass.

The U.S. manufactures about 6 billion square feet of flat glass a year.

A square mile is 27,878,400 square feet.

27,878,400 X 90 X 90 / 6,000,000,000 = 37.636

So if we devoted all of our annual glass production capacity to covering 90 miles square with glass, it would take about 37 years to accomplish the task at current production rates.

When we are talking about solar power systems such numbers are well past the point of absurdity. It's like building a sandcastle on the beach against a twenty foot tidal wave.

The economy as we know it is not going to survive the tsunamis of peak oil and climate change. We have to face the facts that technical fixes such as wind turbines and solar panels are not going to save us. Our only option is to build a cohesive society that will not disintegrate under conditions of tremendous adversity. If we can't do that it won't matter in the least how many solar panels or wind turbines we install.

[GliderGuider]

83. Wow, what a great way of thinking about it.

People really don't get issues of scale, and that does help bring it into perspective.

I agree completely about the importance of cohesive societies, or at least cohesive communities. The only way humanity has ever weathered real shitstorms is by listening to the advice of John, Paul, George and Ringo: "I get by with a little help from my friends."

[ConcernedCanuk]

70. I have a small solar system, total charging wattage is 24Watts/hr

.
.
.

I originally bought a 5 watt panel for $80 - now only about $30 - around $5 per watt is the normal cost nowadays. Nanosolar says they can do it for around $1 per watt, but they are not selling to the general public, they are committed with back orders of over a year . .

On with my story.

I bought it solely for the purpose keeping my battery charged in my truck(which had a camper on it) so I could read later at night, especially when it was to warm to want to use candles.

I found the 5 watt not quite adequate, so I bought a 15 watt panel, again, at the time it was around $200, but is only around $80 now.

I then bought a 400watt inverter, and a weed eater(electric) so that I could cut down the campsite - making it neat, and more importantly almost a "bug-free" zone.

I have 2 2-watt panels, about the size of 3 cigarette packs each, that I keep on the dash of my truck, as we get a lot of cold weather up here, and I do not drive my truck on a regular basis.

Anyhow

Total cost now would be about $140 for the panels, $100 for a battery, and $50 for the 400 watt inverter - or less than $300

I now have a 800 watt inverter that I bought on sale for $75 - the 400watt inverter still works too.

I have two camper fridges, the propane/110/12volt kind. They do NOT have compressors, so there is no surge when they turn on.

I can run one fridge on one battery for 4 hours, as well as some lights, radio, and a bit of computer use.

However, I also have 2 batteries in my truck, and I have made them easy to remove - and in some power outages recently I have been able to have my computer, lights and fridge going for over 14 hours using all three batteries.

Point being - if people started off with a MINIMAL investment for solar power, less than $500 say, then they could have the advantage of back-up during power shortages, and also make a dent, albeit tiny to start with, in their hydro consumption.

And conservation habits kick in pretty quick when you can see the battery voltage dropping.

A few for instances.

Lights - all my lights are CFLs. That makes a big difference.

I leave my monitor OFF while my computer is booting up - there is a BIG surge when the monitor kicks in, so I wait until I know my computer is finished booting to turn on the monitor.

I have backup propane heat if my electric goes out, and also a wood-heated enclosure that will come into play in the event of a power outage during cold weather.

And I also have a generator, which is the most inefficient source of power I have, but would get me through an extended outage where I needed to charge my batteries.

A 400 watt inverter and one battery will also run a sump-pump - SOME sump pumps, not all - It depends on their wattage requirements.

Handy thing - drag a bathtub, pool close to a river or lake - hook up the sump-pump and fill that pool/bathtub, hole in the ground, whatever, and you have a mini wading pool in no time -less than 5 minutes.

Something to think about - starting with a mini solar system will make you want MORE of it.

I started with 5watts, now I have 22w - and will keep going.

Gotta start somewhere!

[hunter]

71. Computer monitors....

Some computers get upset if the monitor is not turned on when you boot them. But more than that, LCD monitors require much less power than CRT monitors. Eventually I decided I was doing more damage to the earth by running a CRT than I would by sending it off for recycling, so I bought an LCD. Your numbers may vary, but if your electricity comes from coal and you air condition your house, running a CRT is definitely bad for the environment.

As an energy saving device a laptop computer is always a good choice, although they are more difficult to repair and not as easily upgradeable as desktop machines.

Our own house would be perfectly habitable without power any time of the year since we live in a place with a mild climate, and I even have enough solar capacity to run a computer and a few lights in the evening.

I think what I'd miss most without electrical service is the washing machine.

[XemaSab]

80. I'd miss the fridge

I can't imagine life without a fridge. :(

[DangerDave921]

93. Not so easy

Sounds great as a theory, but not really practical YET. I don't think anyone can just slap a solar panel on their roof and BINGO -- solar energy to run their whole house. The technology is not there yet. And even with a solar set-up, you would need traditional energy to back it up, distribute it, etc. So yes, let's keep exploring and working on it. But don't fool yourself that it's as easy as it seems in a speech.

I saw a big house on TV that ran on solar, and they needed what looked like a football-sized bank of solar panels to run it. Electricity cost about 8 cents a month. BUT -- the installation of the solar panels cost $750,000! That's fine if you're super-rich but what about the regular folks out there?

[Lorien]

99. You didn't see the recent article on the issue. The scientist proposing it

was talking about solar farms that would roughly be the size of four Manhattans that would supply power to the entire US-NOT solar panels for your roof. It would be far easier and more economical than, say, a decade spent "surging" in Iraq.

[Horse with no Name]

94. Let's remember that Reagan REMOVED them from the WH as well.

This should not be a hard thing to do. There are VAST areas of unused land in the Southwest. Why isn't it being done?

[Lorien]

98. There was a news article here about that very topic a few months ago

but, of course, NO presidential candidates have brought it up or proposed it as a solution to high energy costs, conflicts overseas, and climate change. If I were running for President this is how I would incorporate it into an energy/ economic plan:

Get the hell out of Iraq ASAP. Spend that $120 Billion on a new National high speed MagLev rail system with light rail connectors. Develop the areas around major train depots using the new urbanism designs that place mixed income homes and apartments within walking distance of retail, restaurants, office space, hospitals, schools, and theaters. These measures would create tens of thousands of new jobs and make Americans more mobile, less dependent on foreign oil and our roads would be less congested. To really cut our energy use, I'd build 100 square miles worth of solar panels (a recent article stated that that's how many would be needed to power the entire US), with the eventual goal of making home energy free or nearly free for the poor, disabled,schools,hospitals, government buildings etc. Added benefit; cutting greenhouse gases and allowing those people or institutions to direct the savings elsewhere (like hiring more teachers or staff) .We could do both and STILL spend less than we have on the Iraq war!

[Kurovski]

103. K&R. (nt)