A look at the growth in solar energy:
While industry continues to work on lowering the cost of installed solar,
the amount of solar energy we are adding as a percentage of the total mix is approx 33%. The over all growth of solar continues at estimates between 40-60%.

It is now said via news source that solar is 1% of our total energy mix.

Let us take a look at what this would mean if we simply maintain, not accelerate the growth.

2012:1.33%
2013:1.7689%
2014:2.3526%
2015:3.1290%
2016:4.1615%
2017:5.5349%
2018:7.3614%
2019:9.7906%
2020:13.0216%

And so on, until saturation point is reached,

Wind is also growing astronomically.

Being off of fossil fuels for power generation completely by 2035 is an inadequate goal. Accelerating just these two technologies, as well as geothermal(small and large) tidal and wave generation, existing large hydro-electric, additional small hydro-electric all add up to the potential(without nuclear) of outdating fossil fuels completely. If we get serious, convert to plug in hybrid(these can do the vast majority of their driving with NO fossil fuels) we can and should convert.

There are some side effects though. Massive, meaningful employment, a greener world, healthier air, unpolluted oceans, and a longer existance for mankind. Oh yes, that also results in a healthier government budget.

At some point, the competing growth of wind energy is going to compete solar, and a balance will be found between the two. Hopefully my grandchildren can work that out, a bit less stubbornly than we have to fight for our lives now.

And THAT.. is how you get off of foreign oil.

---

Janice

Couple of points here. The numbers are fantasy and not going to happen.
It's nice that you set out some mathematical numbers, but so what? They aren't realistic.

Solar panel technology is 40 years old. How much has it really improved (in output) during that time? Not much. Output is still little unless you buy really efficient panels and then you pay through the nose.

I'm not sure how wind is growing astronomically. Most of the equipment is made in China, not here. And those generators require rare earths, which we are lacking now because of mining policy.

What happened to T. Boone Picken's wind project?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T._Boone_Pickens

Don't know what you mean by "getting serious". If you mean putting a lot of taxpayer money towards building out the infrastructure, I'll tell you we're already maxed out by everything else.

We heard all about green shoots and the $787 billion stimulus was spent in 2009. Nothing. Oh, and the budget deficit went from a deficit in 2007 of about 400 billion to $1.5 trillion in 2008 and hasn't gone down since. So, Asia is about to cut off any further purchases, cuz they finance all those wishful dreams today, and there is no way to pay for it. We're tapped out. Sometimes, things are constrained by resources and $$$. We have none. You want meaningful employment, figure out how to get the money we've already spent back under control and then we can talk.

We went through numbers after numbers after numbers in this thread recently:

http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/forum_thread.php?id=62641

It's NOT doable (in the next 50 years). There's hope and then there's reality.

Wake up time, it is reality.

"The 1973 oil crisis stimulated a rapid rise in the production of PV during the 1970s and early 1980s.[7] Economies of scale which resulted from increasing production along with improvements in system performance brought the price of PV down from 100 USD/watt in 1971 to 7 USD/watt in 1985.[8]"

Current prices on commercial installation is approx. $2/watt(before incentives etc) Currently(that means NOW) providing 1% of our electricity.

Efficiency on some solar cells exceeds 10% in virtually all manufactures, exceeding 20% in some, and again exceeding 20% in solar thermal(not suitable for home installation)

It costs nearly as much to build a fossil fuel generation facility as it does to build the equal solar facility. The difference is, it costs a LOT less to fuel the solar facility.

Over 95% of solar installations are grid connected, so do not even try to take the battery cost argument. They do not use batteries. Some wire, an Inverter,
and an interconnect panel.

The growth rate is in reality 33% of total electric capacity. Approx 60% of solar power is from rooftop (subscriber) generation.

Now.. are you going to bring facts, or is the best you can bring "Pshaaawwww"?

If we build it, we have jobs. we can pay our taxes. Save squabbles for foreign oil without destroying entire oceans. And live cleaner. These is not dreams.

There is no excuse for NOT moving forward.

In 100 miles square(roughly the size of a nevada nuke test site) we can provide as much electricity as the entire country uses.

---

Janice

Hang on. You need "incentives" to sell it, because the market will not bear the true cost of it.

"It costs nearly as much to build a fossil fuel generation facility as it does to build the equal solar facility. The difference is, it costs a LOT less to fuel the solar facility."

That is patently false. Just figure in the fixed and variable costs starting today.

"If we build it, we have jobs. we can pay our taxes. Save squabbles for foreign oil without destroying entire oceans. And live cleaner. These is not dreams."

If you build what? Where are the massive factories to build panels? Where are the raw materials? How are you going to pay a workforce, when you have no money today? Where is this money going to come from?

We're paying about $200 billion a year interest on the debt today. We are tapped out. We're bankrupt, we just haven't declared so yet.

Look at the numbers yourself if you don't believe me. http://www.usdebtclock.org/

Give me details on the financing.

JTEC: Johnson Thermo-Electrochemical Converter System

Genius

iWorm 'em.

Hang on. You need "incentives" to sell it, because the market will not bear the true cost of it.

No, you do not. I gave you real numbers. Please return the courtesy.

"It costs nearly as much to build a fossil fuel generation facility as it does to build the equal solar facility. The difference is, it costs a LOT less to fuel the solar facility."

That is patently false. Just figure in the fixed and variable costs starting today.

Again, real numbers.

"If we build it, we have jobs. we can pay our taxes. Save squabbles for foreign oil without destroying entire oceans. And live cleaner. These is not dreams."

If you build what? Where are the massive factories to build panels? Where are the raw materials? How are you going to pay a workforce, when you have no money today? Where is this money going to come from?

Solar power plants. Rooftop solar. It is going in now. It is selling. It is affordable, it is practical, and it is NEEDED.

We're paying about $200 billion a year interest on the debt today. We are tapped out. We're bankrupt, we just haven't declared so yet.

All comes from building plants overseas. Moving operations overseas. We are more than capable, and it is short sighted NOT to build them here. Especially if you are paying $100+/bbl transportation costs. The debt will not go away until people go back to work. Cause the corporations are CERTAINLY not paying their fair share as they move their profits(on the back of what was working americans) overseas. Every dollar the corporations saves on taxes merely speeds up the loss of the jobs. But.. this is leading off topic.

I gave you real numbers. You give me rhetoric.

This stuff IS going in NOW. It could use a bit of a helping hand, but it is not a free ride. This technology can put the USA in the LEAD again. Are you with us or against us?(remember that rhetoric?)

I have shown the growth rate, and used that same growth rate going forward. If you can tell me mathematically we will compete in the future with several countries that will be paying virtually nothing for their energy moving forward, I am listening. If not there is no point.

---

Janice

JTEC: Johnson Thermo-Electrochemical Converter System

Genius

iWorm 'em.

Based on a thermo-couple.

---

Janice

The Sarnia PV array shows as 97 MW. That should deliver over 140-200 Gigawatt hours per year.

This is really not bad for Ontario, Canada where the wind resources are much more plentiful.

"“Alstom’s expertise in steam turbine technology, together with its integrated power plant solutions, would complement BrightSource’s solar technology to offer highly efficient solar thermal power plants,” Joubert noted.

BrightSource began construction of its 392 MW Ivanpah SolarElectric Generating System (ISEGS), in San Bernardino county, California, the world’s largest solar power plant under construction, in October 2010.

"

The world is not limited to photovoltaic, and approx 60% of the USA photovoltaics are on rooftops. 95% grid connected (remaining 5 % either old installations or no electric grid available at the location.)

As far as "R&D in all forms of energy production" I would agree with if edited to "R&D in all forms of renewable energy production"

The fact is much of the R&D has already been done, and only requires scaling up
production to provide some very real energy.

The lifespan you quote on the photovoltaic panels is pretty much correct, warranty period is 20-30 years. Much like fiber optics, they do not last forever. But they CAN be recycled. And some life beyond the warranty period is possible.

The funny part is with incentives, they always seem to go to the largest and least needing companies, seem to drive the consumer costs UP (we can get you panels, but they will cost you)

Some low interest loans to growing solar companies would be plenty of "subsidy".
This would also help drive prices DOWN. Wind, honestly does not need it. It is ready, mature, and the prefered method of adding capacity to the grid. Which explains the never ending barrage of advertisements from the coal, natural gas, and nuclear industry.

---

Janice

Yep. Saw a show about Fusion. Didn't realize there are so many Fusion Projects going on. Seemed to be a half-dozen or more.

All of them emcompass a very large area in their respective countries/city-states. And Multi-Billions being spent on each one. Made my heart warm that people/governments are putting up that kind of dough.

And they seem to be nearer to completion/reality than I would have thought.

Still, we will be on The Fossil Fuel Road for a long time to come, no matter how many of The Fusion Hotties they get pumping electrons to customers.

Like many Highly Intelligent Beings in The Corporate and Government World have said: All of the technologies we have and are going to have will have to all be available to Supply The Human/Industrial Animal with his Power Fix. And Most of Them will not Be Green.

iWorm 'em. Where Dirt Provides All

---

May we All have a METAMORPHOSIS. REASON. GOoD JUDGEMENT and LOVE and ORDER!!!!!

If you limit R&D to "Renewable Energy" production then you doom us to being "Sun Worshipers" forever.
Fusion, the Holy Grail of energy production, is a non-renewable energy source but it promises to be plentifull.
The criteria for R&D should be Clean/Safe/Cheap energy.

The difference solar/wind/geothermal are ready now. we "hope" to have fussion working safely ... um.. some day.

The sun provides most of the energy on earth as it is.

---

Janice

We All Worship The Sun.

It is Both a Harsh and Soft Mistress.

It Giveth and Taketh.

We Build/Built to Worship It.

Blood has Runneth Over The Stones For It.

In The Beginning With Sun Burning Overhead there was No Green.

In 99.999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% ad infinitum of Worlds with Sun, There Is No Green.

Green is not The Holy Grail.

What Burns and Smokes is Our Savior.

Forever More.

iWorm 'em.

Hang on. You need "incentives" to sell it, because the market will not bear the true cost of it.

No, you do not. I gave you real numbers. Please return the courtesy.

"It costs nearly as much to build a fossil fuel generation facility as it does to build the equal solar facility. The difference is, it costs a LOT less to fuel the solar facility."

That is patently false. Just figure in the fixed and variable costs starting today.

Again, real numbers.

"If we build it, we have jobs. we can pay our taxes. Save squabbles for foreign oil without destroying entire oceans. And live cleaner. These is not dreams."

If you build what? Where are the massive factories to build panels? Where are the raw materials? How are you going to pay a workforce, when you have no money today? Where is this money going to come from?

Solar power plants. Rooftop solar. It is going in now. It is selling. It is affordable, it is practical, and it is NEEDED.

We're paying about $200 billion a year interest on the debt today. We are tapped out. We're bankrupt, we just haven't declared so yet.

All comes from building plants overseas. Moving operations overseas. We are more than capable, and it is short sighted NOT to build them here. Especially if you are paying $100+/bbl transportation costs. The debt will not go away until people go back to work. Cause the corporations are CERTAINLY not paying their fair share as they move their profits(on the back of what was working americans) overseas. Every dollar the corporations saves on taxes merely speeds up the loss of the jobs. But.. this is leading off topic.

I gave you real numbers. You give me rhetoric.

This stuff IS going in NOW. It could use a bit of a helping hand, but it is not a free ride. This technology can put the USA in the LEAD again. Are you with us or against us?(remember that rhetoric?)

I have shown the growth rate, and used that same growth rate going forward. If you can tell me mathematically we will compete in the future with several countries that will be paying virtually nothing for their energy moving forward, I am listening. If not there is no point.

The real numbers on cost of renewable energy (additional $5.2 trillion burden and 1.3 million jobs lost by 2035):

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2010/05/a-renewable-electricity-standard-what-it-will-really-cost-americans

More reality here:

http://www.heritage.org/search?query=solar+power&sort=date

“No problem can be solved from the same level of consciousness that created it.”
Albert Einstein

"The Heritage Foundation is a conservative American think tank based in Washington, D.C.

The foundation took a leading role in the conservative movement during the presidency of Ronald Reagan, whose policies drew significantly from Heritage's policy study Mandate for Leadership. Heritage has since continued to have a significant influence in U.S. public policy making, and is considered to be one of the most influential conservative research organizations in the United States.
"
Wikipedia

Nuff said.

---

Janice

Yup. So what? You've been given numbers. Go through and dispute them on the merit.

You provided me numbers without citation. I provided you numbers with citation.

Have at it.

Nope. I have received no other reasonable numbers. Intentionally biased ones are rejected due to source.

I presume you find no fault with mine then. Glad we can concure.

---

Janice

No, you've received reasonable numbers. You may not like them, but they are reasonable.

My numbers are backed by citation and source. Yours?

your numbers are prepared by those whose job it is to
formulate statistics that back their already formed view.
As such, I see no need to even look at them, since you have not
even bothered to present any yourself that would negate what I have
posted.

FACT: Solar and wind are being installed.
FACT: Fossil fuels continue to rise in price.
FACT: The efficiency is notworthy. The pollution
MUCH less, and the resource is (in terms of the earths lifespan)
unlimited.

Therefore: It is completely FOOLISH to promote fossil fuels as having
any part of a solution. They are in fact the major problem.

---

Janice

Well, that's your opinion. I'm backed by economic numbers.

You? Not so much.

Well, that's your opinion. I'm backed by economic numbers.

You? Not so much.

You provided pundit numbers.

---

Janice

I do not understand ...

When I read about fossil fuels I find we are going to run out of fossil fuels real soon. I find an on-going debate on whether "peak oil" is still in our future of it it is already in our past. I read that all the new finds are barely a drop in the bucket compared to future needs. And so I see all this CO2 concern a total waste of time as it has to end quite soon, like it or not.

I do not understand is all this cheerleading for alternative sources with the concomitant moaning about global melting.

I do not understand why all the time wasted in what cannot be other than a pretense of promoting alternate energy sources. They will have to be developed to replace fossil fuels. Seems promoting alternate sources should be from the point of view that it is solar/wind/tidal/whatever or the end of civilization as we know it.

Seems to me all this talk about global melting is a total waste of bandwidth as use of fossil fuels is rapidly coming to an end as we are fast running out of them.

---

Unvarnished
Haaretz
Jerusalem Post
The origin of the Yahweh Cult