Replies

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

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

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.

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.