Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Sig who wrote (132921)	5/17/2004 8:55:13 PM
From: Zeuspaul	Respond to of 281500

Taking a gross cut at the figures, solar cells cost about $4 /watt $100 bil would buy enough to produce about 1/100 the amount produced by all electric untilities in the US. That would assume 6 hours of sunshine average per day, which would mean location in a sunny state. The power output is also direct current which needs conversion to A/C . You could add another cost of $100 bil for installation, controls, and paperwork. What about the subtractions? If we consume less fossil fuel the price of fossil fuel will go down (or go up less). It is a supply and demand thing. 8 Bucks per watt installed is about right in todays market. However a $100 billion investment would reduce costs in solar...the second $100 billion would buy a lot more juice than the first $100 billion. We are already well into our second Iraq $100 billion....and how much is the loss of human life worth?? What about cleaner air....might save you some bucks at the doctor's place. And what value on American prestige as we develop low cost alternate energy systems that third world nations can make use of in remote areas of the world? And as the sun goes down the lights go out and machines run slower, and slower, unless the petroleum fed emergency generators kick in. The need for emergency generators would be lessened. The utilities run as normal with assist from solar. It is a good match as solar is at it's peak at the same time electrical energy consumption is at its peak. Solar energy production should be compared to higher peak power utility rates. Machines wouldn't run slower...most of them wouldn't care. Switching between solar and grid energy is automatic in a properly designed system. And dont forget the hailstorms (very common here)which can destroy the panels. Or an accumulation of dust to reduce the output. Alternate energy development should be diversified...we don't get much hail in SoCal so this would be a good place to start. If solar cells don't work for your area you could try some conservation. If we all make an effort we could have a significant impact on foreign energy consumption and possibly save a lot of lives. Active passive and solar heating and cooling systems can also save a lot of fossil fuel derived energy. Some of these systems could be significantly more hail proof than PV systems. Altogether, a very expensive alternative but useful for special purposes In SoCal it competes well with the utilities with a fifty percent subsidy...and this is a LOT better than it was ten years ago....a little forward thinking and vision is in order. Invest now so we don't have to send our sons and daughters to fight for oil. Conservation can have an immediate impact on energy usage. The alternate systems will take awhile to develop...the sooner we start the sooner it gets done and the sooner we become less dependent on foreign oil. The failure to implement a comprehensive energy plan is a major failing of our current (and previous) administration. We are paying the price with dead Americans. Zeuspaul