what about Solar in the pickens plan ?

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by John Bradley Miller on July 9, 2008 at 9:51am

Keep an eye on companies like Nanosolar. They are making solar cells as thin as paper which also uses no silicon. This solves two problems. One the scarcity of silicon (and consequently the rising cost) and two the cost of producing the panels. As I have read on Nanosolars website, they are able to print the solar cells in a similar manner to you printing documents with your bubblejet printer. The efficiency is nowhere near that of the best silicon cells, but the cost and weight are so much lower that it opens up all kinds of new possibilities for solar energy.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by stanley kul on July 9, 2008 at 10:43am

john my research indicates that the ROI of solar is not twenty years if your use 3000 kwh per month the system without incentives should run around 17,800.00 $ us thats installed
if you pay .14 $ per kwh thats 420.00 a month thats 5040.00 $ a year
thats 3.5 years not including maintenance and insurance with incentives the payback is quicker you still need to be tied to the grid for reliability this system produces about 3800 kwh per month with 5.5 hours of sun per day if the incentives are increased it should be almost attainable

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Auntie Tutu on July 9, 2008 at 12:31pm

You don't need to centralize solar. JUST PUT THE PANELS ON YOUER HOUSE> My new house runs all the lights, the computer, the pump, the television, and even the refrigerator.
BUt in the ad there aree solar panels, so I guess Pickens wants to promote that too. SOLAR CAN GIVE YOU ENOUGH POWER TO EVEN RUN AN ELECTRIC CAR CHARGED AT YOUR HOUSE OR OFFICE DURING THE DAY>

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Auntie Tutu on July 9, 2008 at 12:33pm

It is a myth that it costs $40,000 to add solar power to your new house at construction time. If you just agree to adjust your life habits by 15%, you can save 50 or 60% of startup and installation.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by John Ashman on July 9, 2008 at 12:47pm

http://www.oem.com.mx/elsudcaliforniano/notas/n698567.htm

Well, my conversational spanish is great, but I do lose some of the nuance and the CFE spokesman seems kinda dodgy, however it looks like sort of a rent to own thing. Maybe. If I understand it properly, you have to pay some of the upfront costs and they amortize some or all of the panel costs. He keeps mentioning that it will pay for itself in 4-5 years, rather than saying 'it costs this much per month' which is a bit confusing. It also sounds like he's floating the concept as something they'll work out for you if you sign a contract with them, but less than a specific program. I could be reading more into it than it is, maybe they're simply recognizing that this will happen and will reimburse you if you put energy back into the grid, even though it's not their responsibility. The more I reread it, it comes across more as 'we'll work with you' rather than 'we'll set it up for you'.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by ittybitty on July 9, 2008 at 12:53pm

I don't but this guy does.....

Attachments:

• OECDSept102007TWPatzek.pdf, 1011 KB

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by John Ashman on July 9, 2008 at 1:08pm

Interestingly, your guy omits a lot of options, it seems, such as nuclear and algae fuel. He only mentions algae once in passing, but that could be a biggie. Solar, algae and wind are permanent solutions - coal, natural gas, oil, etc will run out eventually. Even nuclear, I suppose. HOWEVER, all this 'temporary' stuff can last for centuries, so we might as well use it til we get solar, wind and algae off the ground. His idea that public transportation will replace personal transportation is kinda laughable though. If we get a handle on this, public transportation will die in favor of small, efficient personal transportation methods. Unless someone invents a mass/energy transporter.........

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Joe Lalumia on July 9, 2008 at 1:32pm

It currently costs about $30,000 to convert ONE home to solar power-- battery packs included. Solar will never be more than a very small percentage of our total energy requirements-- again--- even Boone's plan replaces electrical power generation with wind power-- 22%. It does not eliminate our need for petroleum products --- for decades to come. But this would be a great first step--

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Randall S Dunphy on July 9, 2008 at 1:35pm

I live in southern California and we have lots of sun! I am aggressively looking into solar panels for my roof!. What a resource we have!!. why does the Pickens Plan not address solar power?????

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Krash66 on July 9, 2008 at 1:47pm

Solar is a great idea. Economics is the problem. As with anything else (all sources of power included), things get cheaper as they are more massed produced. Many different Highly efficient solar cells are being developed as we speak. Cost however is the hurdle. Investment in these types of panels and the materials needed to make them is the key to making them an affordable alternative. I for one, would be all for more solar power. I think Mr. Pickens would do well to diversify into more alternatives.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Willard G. Wood on July 9, 2008 at 1:50pm

Solar should also be used. Problem is Sun energy is not 24/7 and current technology is expensive for any really serious wattage need to run a house. True that somebody should be developing this technology and several companies are involved. L.E.D. low voltage lighting is already here, been to your local Home Depot or Loews lately? All my patio lighting runs on 12 vdc with L.E.D. lamps. Off course I can't run my A.C.,Stove,Water Heater, but I am working on running my computers from solar. Get use to adding an additional utility room to your house. Call this your stored sunlight room, better known as a battery room.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Glenn Scott on July 9, 2008 at 2:27pm

Wind is a form of solar. Solar power is all about the efficiency of the conversion method you use to capture the energy hitting the surface of the earth as electric power.

Solar has 4 methods - each has advantages and disadvantages and these vary from place to place and in different uses. All have value.

Passive Solar - Design buildings to passively use the Sun's energy to reduce the inputted energy needed to heat or cool them.

Active Solar - Use PV solar panels to generate electric power to heat/cool and power the home

Hydro - Capture the Sun's energy which evaporates water and lifts it to higher elevations in rain which spin turbines as it runs downhill. (Another form is ocean current and ocean temp gradients)

Wind - Capture the Sun's energy which warms air masses and causes wind which spin turbines as it blows.

Consider the incidence of Solar Energy hitting the ground (http://zebu.uoregon.edu/1998/ph162/l4.html)

Average over the entire earth = 164 Watts per square meter over a 24 hour day, 8 hour summer day, 40 degree latitude of middle America, is 600 Watts per sq. meter. So over this 8 hour day you receive:

8 hours x 600 watts per sq. m = 4800 watt-hours per sq. m which equals 4.8 kilowatt hours per sq. meter. This is equivalent to 0.13 gallons of gasoline. For 1,000 square feet of horizontal area (typical roof area) this is equivalent to 12 gallons of gasoline or about 450 KWH. A house might use about 100 KWH per day.

Aggressive Convervation (in existing homes) might get this down by 10% on average.

Aggressive Conservation (in new construction) meaning more passive solar design might drop this by 50%.

So 1,000 square feet of solar at 20% efficiency plus additional conservation gets you off grid.

If ... you've got 1,000 square feet of flat or south facing roof ...

if ... you don't have big trees casting shadows across your roof, which when you cut them down reduces your homes summer cooling efficiency ...

and on and on ...

But Mr. Pickens isn't addressing fixed energy consumption ... he's addressing mobile energy consumption.

Pickens uses wind to generate electric power for fixed consumption, freeing natural gas now being used for fixed electric power consumption for mobile energy consumption.

The key here is to focus on the problem of storing energy for use in cars. That's the central problem all petroleum reduction energy plans need to address. Cars are all about storing power. Gasoline does this rather well, so replacing it with an alternative has a high hurdle to overcome. Which is why its not simple to do and hasn't just happened already.

Let the Sun Shine!
Glenn

▶ Reply to This

• First
• Previous
• Next
• Last