what about Solar in the pickens plan ?
there are millions of roof tops that do nothing all day, connected to the grid .
i think we should use these to produce power as well as wind and gas
anybody have any thoughts on this ?
Why does the plan not have this in it?
i think we should use these to produce power as well as wind and gas
anybody have any thoughts on this ?
Why does the plan not have this in it?
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Shannon on -
Mike Smith said:Photovoltaic generation has, for many years, remained cost prohibitive for most people, given that the cost per generated Watt is now, on average, $4.82 in the U.S according to http://www.solarbuzz.com/ModulePrices.htm. There have, however, been most exciting developments in PV technology recently from Konarka, http://www.konarka.com, that produce photovoltaic elements on a printing press, using multiple colored inks on rolls of plastic that not only convert much more of the light spectrum, but do so at a much lower cost. In prototypical runs, cost per Watt is approximately $1.00, with costs in full scale production to drop below $0.50, according to information available on the Web. Fuji, in cooperation with Konarka, have developed an ink-jet printer that accomplishes the process most effectively. http://www.pv-tech.org/r_and_d/article/konarka_reveals_inkjet_thin_...
They have sized substrate that fits between the ridges on commonly available steel roofing, making it practical to make one's entire roof a photovoltaic array, at a cost acceptable to the average homeowner. Such an array would provide a substantial surplus of electrical power for most any homeowner, and is very close to production.
It is often thought that PV is only effective where the sun shines brightly, such as in Arizona and other desert states, but that is not the case. PV is not dependent upon heat but light in the form of photons. Even on a cloudy day, light sufficient to generate substantial electricity is available and, with low cost per generated Watt, the entire roof of one's home can be used.
Low-cost Photovoltaic generation is the key to our transition from fossil fuel to distributed generation of hydrogen for most needs. Prior to the work of Konarka, in conjunction with NREL, this solution was always just out of reach, but now appears to be so very close to reality, say within the next 24 months.
Please check the provided links to confirm this post.
-
Permalink Reply by Shannon on
-
Mike,
I'm just begining to look into Solar.
I guess my big concern about creating PV on plastic is that plastic is manufactured using oil.
Does anyone know what the ecological footprint of PV is? I'm interested in understanding the ecological impact to create and dispose of the PV.
-
Permalink Reply by Ameer Mohamed on -
solar should be used in conjunction with wind power.
-
Permalink Reply by James R. Westlund on -
To All,
I'm an engineer and I get off no: solar, Wind and hydroelectric and all renewable energy resources. And Stanley Kul, you are right millions of square yards of rooftops not doing anything but consuming energy under them. To the point where it is a fact that the buildings of the world are buying the energy that produces over 52% of all the CO2 and other green house gases dumped into our atmosphere every single day. On a combined level all of the transportation in the world using fossil fuels only produce about 17% of all the CO2 and green house gases. Wind farms yes, Solar farms yes, but if we don't reduce the amount of energy consumed by the average building by using better build science and technologies for new construction and remodeling construction we still just keep on pumping energy through the walls of the buildings of the world. It won’t matter if the energy comes from renewable resources or not. The price of that energy will keep going up as dictated by demand. Answer: get off oils and gas and coal. YES. Reduce he amount of energy we use, A BIG YES, lower demand keeps energy prices low.
-
Permalink Reply by Scott Sparrow on -
I live in Arizona south of Phoenix. There are miles and miles of desert that could be used as solar farms. Also, with the huge growth the area has seen, there should be solar on every home here, but there isn't. I hear the solar technology is nearing significant breakthroughs. I would like to learn more.
-
Permalink Reply by Jack Harrell on -
Stop letting your Electric Company get away with increasing your rates year after year. Go Solar now without the up-front investment. Guarantee your electricity rate for up to 25 years. Call now or click on the link below to find out more! 252-264-2843
www.jointhesolution.com/affordable_energy
Solar certainly should be a part of the Pickens Plan. As you said Stanley there are millions of roof tops just sitting there receiving the power from the sun. Adding that energy to the grid is easily done with grid tied solar electric systems. Unfortunately the high upfront cost prohibits many homeowners from adoping solar. A better idea is to rent the solar system without the upfront cost and no maintenance fees. The monthly rental fee is determined by the amount of energy your home uses and is usually at par with what you are already paying for electricity each month and you can lock that rate in for up to 25 years. Reserve a system now without paying anything until the system is designed and ready to be installed. The $500 - $1000 security deposit is invested in treasury bills and returned back to the homeowner with interest at the end of the contract. Reserve your system now. More than 32,000 homeowners already have.
www.jointhesolution.com/affordable_energy
-
Permalink Reply by Gilbert E Cohen on -
Unfortunately, the Pickens plan is also another business opprtunity for Mr. Pickens who wants to promote his wind farms. But it is OK and he give us a terrific platform to discuss America energy needs.To become energy independant we need to use all our natural ressources including solar pv, concentrating solar, biomass......
I would like to see solar added to the plan too. Please visit my page and share your thought.
Thanks
-
Permalink Reply by Lou De Frog on -
Because a roof top system for every home would cost about a hundred times more and take about a million times longer to install than one Big installation.
Individual, home sized installations will always be the most expensive, but slightly larger systems financed and shared by a group, generally provide a better payback. Think community system so we don't have to build more grid capacity. Many components used in small systems cost the same as parts in larger systems producing more energy.
-
Permalink Reply by Charlie Bird on -
At this point we need to subsidize solar research, not manufacturers or consumers. Solar is just not there yet. Power conversion efficiency is terrible. It will get there. We just need to keep working on it. I'm not saying there is not a place for it. I have solar powered security lighting around the house and use solar to recharge batteries. We just do not need to be pumping taxpayer dollars into large scale solar plants that utilize such low efficiency panels that will be (should be) obsolete in very few years.
-
Permalink Reply by Dr. Paul A. Curto on -
Obsolete?! Hah! Take a look at the Ridgecrest Project. That was designed 26 years ago, and was never built because of opposition in Congress using exactly this line of argument. It's as efficient as anything ever designed using solar power.
I cannot say how angry I am that we could not start in 1983. We lost 26 years.
Ironic that was the year McCain came to the Senate. He voted down the solar tax credits, too.
-
Permalink Reply by Charlie Bird on
-
Leaving politics out of the argument, I will argue that the Ridgecrest Project "is as efficient as anything ever designed using solar power". That's the problem. It is not efficient for large scale projects. You must agree that the panels that would have been installed 25 years ago are half as efficient as the panels that would be installed today and half again as the panels that would be installed in probably five years. There is a place for solar, but I believe the huge amount of capital invested in a solar plant today would be better spent - in the same amount - for R&D to accelerate the technology. We would be far better off if we starting building nuclear plants 26 years ago. A couple of them might even be operational by now.
Featured Discussion
Twitter Feed
© 2009 Created by PickensPlan
Badges | Community Guidelines | Report an Issue | Privacy | Terms of Service
