Re: if you were president

On 9 May 2007 13:09:09 -0700, $Zero <zero@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On May 8, 10:55?pm, Josh Hill <userepl...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 7 May 2007 21:22:47 -0700, $Zero <z...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Check out
algae farms if you want to see something with amazing potential -- we
could grow it in salt water pools in the desert, so the possibilities
aren't limited by the availability of arable land, as switchgrass and
other biofuel sources are. There's a plethora of possibilities out
there, but thanks in no small part to the greed and myopia of the Bush
Administration and Congress they haven't been receiving as much
funding as they should.

well, there's always venture capitalists.

They've been making some significant investments. Unfortunately, they
aren't on the scale that we need. Only Uncle Sam can do that, and he's
asleep at the wheel.

There are plenty of creative thinkers.

but they're not valued.

Undervalued, no doubt.

mostly, they're misunderstood.

hello.

[bowing]

They need funds for research
and demonstration projects. Most of the money goes to pork like
ethanol from corn and to oil and gas subsidies, unfortunately.

it's a creative vision thinger.

What your overlooking is that a solar panel /doesn't produce enough
energy over its lifetime/ to create another solar panel.

what you're overlooking is the "cost" and availability of the raw
materials at the core of solar power -- which would otherwise be
wasted.

Sand.

no, sand is what you use to make the silicon panels, the sun is that
amazingly abundant and astoundingly inexpensive raw material at the
core of solar power.

therefore, once you're able to convert all of that raw material into a
more usable energy (which would otherwise be wasted) you're increasing
the gross amount of usable energy.

because i don't buy into your unproven assertion that it inherently
takes more energy to create a solar panel than a solar panel can
convert, i say we come out with a serious net gain.

since other sources of power that we use are far easier (and far
quicker) depleted.

not to mention the pollution thinger, and the war thinger.

Well, if you can get it to work, all power to you. But no one's done
it yet.

and then you're presupposing that solar power efficiency will never
get efficient enough to create another solar panel.

No, I don't presuppose that -- I just said that AFAIK current silicon
solar cells have a negative EROEI.

AFAYK.

Yes. And since my info comes from a pretty knowledgeable source, I'm
gonna go with it until someone shows otherwise. (I'd research it
myself, but since solar panels are still /way/ too expensive it
doesn't really matter right now.)

so they only make solar panels to waste energy?

you'll claim that they make them so that one can have access to
electricity when one is too far away from other sources.

or just to experiment or prototype.

or just for spite.

myself, i love those calculators that run on light.

and they're very inexpensive.

way cheaper than replacing batteries.

Yes, but houses don't run on batteries. Grid power is a lot cheaper.

Improved materials and production
techniques would change that.

no doubt.

It's like
losing something on every sale and trying to make it up on volume.

well, given that the main source of production is the sun, it's
virtually practical to do so.

No, because it would take more than the lifetime output of one solar
panel to produce a new solar panel.

sorry, but i don't believe that.

regardless, even if one had to use 10% of something other than solar
power to create a whole new solar panel, one would still be 90% ahead
of the game, eventually.

well, it sounds good, anyway.

Doesn't work, though.

So you just can't make solar
panels without adding energy from another source --

so you keep claiming.

anyway, that same dynamic applies to the manufacturing of every other
power source.

for instance, to make a windmill, one needs to burn lotsa calories.

Much, much less than the windmill makes over its lifetime -- according
to what I've read, the payback occurs within the first few months of
wind turbine operation.

and one needs to figure in all of the effort of all of those people
through out the ages who figured out how to make wheels spin, and how
to carve fan blades out of wood, and wire up generators, etc.

my oh my, the cost of power is quite cumulative innit.

My well-considered response to that is it don't mean ***. You have a
positive EROEI or you don't bother.

and if you're
adding energy from another source, it's almost always more efficient
just to use that energy directly.

so, IOW, we should all just stop building more efficient power plants
and stick to fucking eachothers' brains out?

sounds good to moi.

Me too.

Not really. Wind, for example, is quite economical at this point,
almost competitive with conventional power sources.

well then, use wind to create solar panels.

Why not just use the electricity directly? The only thing the solar
panels would do is waste some of it.

no.

because a huge windfarm in the middle of nowhere during an unusually
high windstorm can be used to create solar panels that we can use in
the city -- any old time we want to -- during sunny days, anyway.

Solar power is just as intermittent as wind. And that's one of its big
problems. The panels we have "work" as well as they do only because we
have only a few of them, which means that the grid can work as a big
sink. But in practice, intermittency means that both wind and solar
require storage beyond a certain penetration -- 20% or so in the case
of wind. And that's almost a hard limit at this point, because we
don't have the ability to store much power economically: the most
efficient storage techniques, e.g., hydroelectric storage, appear to
have limited practical potential.

unpredictable distant windpower can be used to create solar panels
that can be placed on all sides of tall buildings.

Dude, if the solar panels take more power to make than they create
over their lifetimes, there's no reason. And if they're more expensive
than other sources, there's no possibility.

or maybe solar panels designed to be used as the surface of roads and
parking lots and whatnot.

Good luck.

or as the exterior walls of homes, and schools, and bowling alleys.

They need to face the sun or they lose efficiency. Roofs are usually
best. (Well, tracking is best.)

or on the roofs of automobiles, and Mack trucks, and motorcycle
chrome.

Not enough power -- particularly if you want to drive at night!

still, i'll bet that the real cost of creating solar panels is
seriously over-estimated.

I don't know. They're certainly costly.

what's the biggest cost?

The silicon wafers, I suppose.

how much does it cost per panel?

Don't remember. Several dollars a Watt. Do a search.

and what is it about making same that can't be made much much cheaper?

Dunno. Polysilicon is expensive, particularly since there's a
shortage. Do a search.

You could try researching it yourself.

yep.

you too.

Sure, but as I said, it doesn't interest me that much. Too many
roadblocks to offer a short-term solution, and the long-term stuff,
while cool, is anything but certain.

although, i read in wiki that on earth, the sun only gives out about
1600 watts per square meter, so...

that seems a bit depressing, practical-energy-efficiency-hope-wise.

Why? It's lots.

i'll say.

that's almost fifteen amps using normal house voltage.

and since most people use far less than 100 amps at a time...

half a roof would probably be plenty.

The cells aren't completely efficient, nor, using silicon technology,
can they be.

but i was thinking about the required size of a solar panel power
plant, not an individual home.

though, i suppose one could go vertical for a lot of it, not to
mention strategically placed parallel walls within.

Nope. See above.

--
Josh

"Why should we hear about body bags and deaths,
and how many, what day it?s going to happen, and
how many this or what do you suppose? Or, I mean,
it?s, it?s not relevant. So, why should I waste my
beautiful mind on something like that?" - Barbara Bush
.