The Solar and Renewable Utopia

National Review (Planet Gore) ^ | March 24, 2009 | William Tucker

[reaganaut1]

“We know the right thing to do,” said President Barack Obama at his press conference on energy this afternoon. “We’ve known the right choice for a generation. The time has come to make that choice and act on what we know. . . . We have achieved more in two months for a clean energy economy than we have done in perhaps 30 years.”

Thirty years, that would be . . . hmmm . . . 1979, right? Wasn’t that the year — yes, it was. That was the date when Jimmy Carter finally got his Grand Energy Plan through Congress, setting us the road to corn ethanol, the Synthetic Fuels Corporation, and a host of other harebrained schemes.

Carter Redux, that’s the only way to put it. After 30 years out of power, the purveyors of the Solar and Renewable Utopia are back. We’re going to develop windmills, make solar panels affordable, and redesign buildings so they use only half as much energy — in theory, at least. The subtext, of course, is this — we won’t have to deal with coal, nuclear, or any of those other nasty technologies that aren’t “clean and renewable.”

So what’s wrong with this picture? Well, the problem is that 30 years hasn’t changed the physics of things like the intensity of sunlight or wind power. Nuclear power has 2 million times the energy density of fossil fuels. Fossil fuels are again about ten times as dense as wind and solar. Multiply it out and that comes to a factor of 20 million. How does this manifest itself? Well, in the amount of land that will be required to collect all that solar and wind energy before we can begin using it.

[reaganaut1]

It's too bad Thomas Friedman is much more influential than William Tucker. The former says things the "intellectuals" want to hear.

[Always Right]

Solar and wind are at best 20% solutions and it will take decades to get there. Hydro power and nuke has much more potential.

[longtermmemmory]

I would like to have a solar house in order to be “off grid”.

[gieriscm]

I would like to have a solar house in order to be “off grid”.

I'm planning on incorporating it into my next home design; we already own the land and have selected the building site. If fedgov wants to give me a tax break for it, I won't complain, though I'll install it either way.

[Venturer]

I have seen anything actually happen in the last two months.

A lot of promises, a lot of talk, but the fact is we will still be using the same power sources we have had for the last 50 years, or we wont have any.

Certainly he will tax hell out of us, putting us in the poor house wuth his super plans, but the energy sources will remain basically the same while he talks a lot of trash.

[choctaw man]

“We know the right thing to do,” said President Barack Obama at his press conference on energy this afternoon. “We’ve known the right choice for a generation. The time has come to make that choice and act on what we know. . . . We have achieved more in two months for a clean energy economy than we have done in perhaps 30 years.” - Repeat anything often enough and the sheeple will believe it, especially when the messiah’s teleprompter says it..

[longtermmemmory]

I think a REAL help would be to do something akin to what they did with digital satelite dishes which the feds gave immunity from local ordinances. IOW they could not ban digital dishes the way the locals (at the behest of cable companies) banned satelite dishes.

So a law is passed prohibiting of banning solar cell systems.

[gieriscm]

Do the same for windmills and watch the enviro-freaks really go crazy. :)

[wolf78]

The Solar and Renewable Utopia

There can only be a "one size fits all" solution because people and their living conditions are all the same. That's the essence of capitalism. No, wait, that was the other one, also starts with a c.... ;)

Today is not 30 years ago. Solar cell production has been automated and standardized, and other than just 2 years ago, there's plenty silicon production coming online. Solar cells for off-grid homes are becoming competitive (with subsidies, without subsidies they will be in the next 3-5 years including batteries). 50% more energy-efficient homes isn't state of the art anymore. 85% is quite doable.

Does that mean it's an economically sensible decision to upgrade for every right now? No, certainly not. But for some it is. Capitalims means choice and if that means 20% market share for solar over the next 25 years, then there's nothing wrong with that. We don't necessarily need one solution to replace all others, one that does a specific job is fine.

These solar panels,” he says, “measuring 700 square feet, take a week to generate enough hydrogen to fill one fuel tank.”

So in other words: The roof of an average house produces enough hydrogen in a week to last for about a week of commutes.... hmmm.

I know: A lot is science fiction still and much too expensive right now, if you want to save energy AND money, go with a Jetta Diesel, that's a good solution for TODAY. But it's not like it's scientifically impossible.

[neverdem]

Hydro power and nuke has much more potential.

I don't see any hydro going up, only coming down, at least in the east. We'll be lucky to get more nukes.

[steelyourfaith]

 

Beam me to Planet Gore !