Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Power Hardware

Solar Energy Becoming More Pervasive 484

Posted by ScuttleMonkey from the not-long-to-pay-itself-off-with-gas-prices dept.
TheUploader writes "RenewableEnergyAccess is reporting that Solatec LLC has released a stick-on solar panel kit that charges your hybrid while parked. In related news, the world's largest photovoltaic system will be built, not on the roofs of Priuses, but on the ground of Nevada, and will provide clean energy for the US military."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Solar Energy Becoming More Pervasive More

Solar Energy Becoming More Pervasive

Comments Filter:

  • How to market!? (Score:5, Informative)

    by JDSalinger ( 911918 ) * on Monday February 06, 2006 @03:13PM (#14652988)
    The Prius has an MSRP of $21,725. At 10% the cost of the car, the solar panel kit ($2,195) seems like a reasonable deal, considering it facilitates 10% better gas mileage. At 55 mpg, the gas cost to drive 200,000 miles (at $2.20/gallon) is $8,000. At 60 mpg, the gas cost to drive 200,000 miles (at $2.20/gallon) is $7,333. The difference is $666. Considering the kit costs over three times what the gas savings amount to, it is hard to market on account of good money-sense. The only consolation is the concept of helping mother nature. I have limited understanding of the fabrication process of the solar panels, so it would be hard to say whether or not mother nature profits from this scenario.
    • "The Prius has an MSRP of $21,725."

      Yeah...but, it looks like CRAP. Can't they make these 'green' cars look nice and sporty?

      If they could make a hybrid car of some type with 0-60mph speeds and looks comparable to say a Vette or something..I'd be interested.

      Till then...I'm not interested. Gas prices aren't that big a deal to me...my last car was a little european car that only got 10 mpg before Katrina killed it (RIP).

      It looked great and had performance, and that's what matters to me. I'd hope that the

      • Re:How to market!? (Score:5, Interesting)

        by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF ( 813746 ) on Monday February 06, 2006 @03:29PM (#14653178)

        Yeah...but, it looks like CRAP. Can't they make these 'green' cars look nice and sporty?

        They hit the economy car segment first, because that is where is is marketable as a gas saving feature. For sports cars, however, you'll be seeing hybrids very soon from a number of different manufacturers and they will be very, very fast to accelerate off the line, given the benefits of stable power at the low end of the spectrum. Toyota and Mitsubishi's concept demos this year seemed particularly nice.

        • Re:How to market!? (Score:5, Informative)

          by taniwha ( 70410 ) on Monday February 06, 2006 @04:13PM (#14653637) Homepage Journal
          can't agree more - my prius will drag just about anyone from a standing start, especially on a hill - it's that high torque electric motor that does it - instant power you just don't get from an gas engine without trashing your clutch

          • Re:How to market!? (Score:4, Interesting)

            by drinkypoo ( 153816 ) <drink@hyperlogos.org> on Monday February 06, 2006 @04:46PM (#14653973) Homepage Journal
            Actually, the problem is that you don't get instant torque from a gasoline engine. Electric motors make peak torque at 0 RPM. However, my car has only 155bhp and 155ft-lb stock, and I have nothing more than intake/exhaust for performance, and I will roast your little bimbo box hybrid off the line, because I have a hard suspension (no squat) and a close-ratio transmission. Trust me, I've done it before :P (And for all those others out there reading this, no, I don't think it was an impressive feat.)

            And uh, clutches were meant to be trashed :)

        • Re:How to market!? (Score:3, Interesting)

          by drinkypoo ( 153816 )
          I've even heard that there will be a new Nissan Skyline hybrid. Supposedly, the weight of the batteries and motors isn't hugely higher than the weight of the AWD system that it's replacing. The new car would likely have electric drive in front and conventional drive in the rear. But then, there's more Skyline rumors than Apple rumors...

      • Re:How to market!? (Score:3, Informative)

        by iezhy ( 623955 )
        Yeah...but, it looks like CRAP. Can't they make these 'green' cars look nice and sporty?

        check out this one [acpropulsion.com] before you say that again..

      • Good Looking Hybrids (Score:2, Interesting)

        by nroose ( 738762 )
        How about this: http://www.greencarcongress.com/2006/01/psa_peugeo t_cit.html [greencarcongress.com]

    • Let's triple the petrol cost. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by CyricZ ( 887944 ) on Monday February 06, 2006 @03:18PM (#14653053)
      Let's triple or quadruple the cost of petrol, for instance, perhaps due to a stagnant American economy or an American attack on Iran. Now you may just see some benefits to such a system. Of course, if the prices rise quickly on such an essential commodity, things might change relatively fast. You may not have a job to drive to, for instance.

      • Har- what about good old love of the planet. I am by no means stereotypical environmentalist, but even when i lived in an apartment where the heat was included in the resnt, I still turned down the heat while I was gone for the day and while I slept. (Although that cost me nothing in terms of $$$)
        Recycling is an effort where I live, but I do it anyway.
      • "Let's triple or quadruple the cost of petrol, for instance, perhaps due to a stagnant American economy or an American attack on Iran."

        Actually, a tripling of the price of fuel would kill the US economy, but not the other way around. A stagnant American economy means less demand for fuel, which should result in a lowering of the price. Unless you're talking about a weak dollar, I'm not sure why you come to the conclusion you stated. I think you have cause and effect reversed. An American attack on Iran woul

      • Go VW! (Score:3, Informative)

        by RingDev ( 879105 )
        Side note, we get less then 20% of our oil from the middle east, if they drop out completely we would just push harder on Venezuala.

        On the other hand, if you buy a brand new VW Gold tdi (turbo diesel) for about the same cost (nicely loaded just under $22k) you get 45mpg (realistic estimate, not inflated EPA). So your fuel costs are similar to the of the Pirus but you have a car with significantly more power and pep. You also have a vehicle that can be feed 100% biodiesel and run with out a drop of petrol. A

        • Re:Go VW! (Score:3, Interesting)

          by HaggiZ ( 68526 )
          Back to the source of the oil. Iran is the second largest OPEC nation, an organisation which controls almost 40% of global oil production. Even by your own figures, I think a sudden loss of one fifth of your oil supply would have a drastic affect on the price of oil. Don't forget the US is not the only country burning oil at a terrible rate, many other countries are going to be bidding for that Venezualan oil if/when the middle east decide they don't want to deliver to anyone in the "coalition of the willin
      • To quote, "ExxonMobil announced $36 billion in profits -- in profits -- last year. That's three billion dollars every month, which if ExxonMobil were a country would make it the 90th richest country in the world. This astronomical number is a 42-percent increase from last year's record-breaking profits. Chevron also bested its record profits for the second year in a row, raking in $27.4 billion in 2005. This is, once again, the company's highest profits in its 126-year history."

    • Re:How to market!? (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      And the Corolla has an MSRP of $14,105. At 40 mpg, it's gonna cost you $11,000 to get the same 200,000 miles out of it. Sure it's $3,000 more on gas, but you're coming out $7,620 ahead on the cost of the vehicle. Why buy a hybrid at all, then?

      • Re:How to market!? (Score:2, Insightful)

        by sonofagunn ( 659927 )
        Now factor in rising gas prices and resale value...
        • Rising gas prices I'll give you, but even if gas prices double in the time it takes to rack up 200K miles, you're still coming out ahead. As far as resale value, that's hard to predict. It's difficult to say what the resale value for the hybrids that have only been out a year or two will be. The Corolla, on the other hand, holds a lot of it's value historically, so the hybrid would have to hold CONSIDERABLE value (which is unlikely to happen as new tech like this tends to have a few parts that are not de
      • atleast it is less polluting, 1 good reason to switch? thats why at some places, Govt./employer give tax exemptions/benefits for using hybrid vehicles

      • Re:How to market!? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by CastrTroy ( 595695 ) on Monday February 06, 2006 @03:39PM (#14653264)
        Why are people even buying cars in the first place? If you city has good public transit, you could take the bus back and forth to work each day, and rent a car for the weekends for less then the price of owning a car. $15 a day to rent a car, plus $15 a day for insurance, that's $30 a day, times 8 days for weekends in a month, and you at $240 a month. That covers insurance, and your car. You'd never have to pay for repairs, and you'd never have to worry about your car breaking down. You probably don't even need a car every weekend, so your costs go down. If you just rented a car every time you really needed to use a car, you'd probably spend a lot less. I realize that some people need to commute long distances to get to work, but there's plenty of people who don't. If you don't need your car to get back and forth to work every day, you probably don't need a car at all.

        • Re:How to market!? (Score:3, Interesting)

          by soft_guy ( 534437 )
          Why are people even buying cars in the first place? If you city has good public transit, you could take the bus back and forth to work each day, and rent a car for the weekends for less then the price of owning a car.

          Many people do not live in such a city. Also, even if you live in a place with public transit, it is unlikely that it will go where you want to go when you need to get there. One place I lived had "public transit" (bus), but I had to drive a mile to get to the nearest bus stop. Even then, it t

        • Re:How to market!? (Score:5, Interesting)

          by wattersa ( 629338 ) <andrew@andrewwatters.com> on Monday February 06, 2006 @04:43PM (#14653936) Homepage
          > Why are people even buying cars in the first place? If you city has good public transit, you could take the bus back and forth to work each day, and rent a car for the weekends for less then the price of owning a car. $15 a day to rent a car, plus $15 a day for insurance, that's $30 a day, times 8 days for weekends in a month, and you at $240 a month.

          I'll answer the economic question first and the philosophical question second. I live in San Francisco near SF State, my job is 12 miles away on the Peninsula, and my commute options are:
          *Driving*
          Ford Crown Victoria LX: $15488 in August 2000, pre-owned with 23,000 miles.
          4.6L V-8, 200 horsepower, 17/25 mpg (22 overall). 88,000 miles driven in 5.5 years = 16,000 miles/year. Gas costs at $2 per gallon avg over last 5.5 years = $1500 per year = $4 per day.
          Insurance: $68 per month with all my discounts = $2.27 per day.
          Maintenance: 3 oil changes per year at $60 at Jiffy Lube plus misc. maintenance averaging $300 per year = $480/yr = $1.30 per day.

          Total consumables cost per day of car use for ownership: $7.57 per day, assuming equal use on all days of the year (long trips on weekends make up for non-use, etc).
          Depreciation: car now worth $4500 = $11,000 depreciation over 5.5 years = $2000/yr = $5.50 per day.

          Total cost for car ownership, daily use for commuting and pleasure, etc etc: $13.07 per day.
          Time spent commuting: ~35 minutes per day for a 24 mile round trip. My car is in my apartment garage so I walk directly to it, drive to the office garage, and walk into the office.

          The question is whether public transit costs more than that amount per day.
          *Public Transit*
          Bus to Daly City BART station: $1.50, 10 minute walk away, ~5 minutes spent waiting for the bus. 5 minute ride to BART.
          $1.75 for BART ticket. 5-10 minutes spent waiting for train.
          20 minute train ride to Millbrae.
          Transfer to Caltrain, $1.50 ticket.
          10 minute train ride.
          Walk 5 minutes to office in downtown San Mateo.
          One-way cost: $4.75
          Time spent: 62 minutes.
          Double it for daily total: $9.50, 120 minutes avg.
          Assume use is halved on weekends for recreation, $4.75 and 60 minutes.

          Car: $4770 per year = $13.07 per day avg.
          Public transit: $2825 per year = $7.70 per day avg.

          Car: 35 minutes per day transit time
          Public transit: 98 minutes per day
          The question now is whether the time difference makes up for the higher cost of ownership. During the week I make $45 per hour. I save over an hour per day by driving. So I can work more per day and still have the same amount of leisure time as if I worked less and took public transit. If I work the full extra hour, I make an extra $39.63 per day by driving!

          Now the philosophical argument.

          For people under time pressure, public transit is the worst. You end up wasting a lot of time waiting around, getting tickets, waiting in line, waiting in the terminal, walking between trains, climbing stairs, and the like. Then you have the often neglected and graffittied vehicles filled with somber, depressed people. Not to mention panhandlers, drug addicts, and blabbermouths on their cell phones trying to catch up on work and not getting much done. I would rather work (and get paid for it) than spend time sitting in a train waiting to arrive at the next station. In my car I have the ultimate freedom in transport: I'm reverse commuting, which means no rush hour traffic and no waiting, I have my iPod hooked up and I can replay the same song 100 times in a row if I want, and I can take a beautiful leisurely drive on highway 280 south, "the world's most beautiful freeway," and luxuriate in the knowledge that if nothing else, I made it in life to the extent that I can afford to drive to work until gasoline reaches about $18 per gallon because I use less than two gallons per day and made that extra $39. Driving makes absolute sense to me, especially as cars get more efficient. Add to that the freedom of being able to go wherever I want at any

          • Re:How to market!? (Score:3, Insightful)

            by CastrTroy ( 595695 )
            So, obviously, none of your transit system offer monthly passes. At 9.50 a day, that's $285 a month. I don't know of any public transit system that charges that high of a rate for a monthly pass. It's usually under $100 for most transit systems. A quick look at the BART [bart.gov] website shows that you can get deals if you don't buy your tickets one at a time. Plus it's a little more convenient to not have to buy a ticket every time you need one. Also, your 36 minutes in the car that you are driving is 36 minu

        • Re:How to market!? (Score:3, Informative)

          by Synn ( 6288 )
          Why are people even buying cars in the first place? If you city has good public transit, you could take the bus back and forth to work each day, and rent a car for the weekends for less then the price of owning a car.

          Because almost every city in the US doesn't have a good public transit system. Owning a car is expensive, 100-200 a month in insurance, 300-400 a month in payments and worse health. But people pay that because they have little other choice.

          In most cities in America the public transit system is

    • Re:How to market!? (Score:2, Insightful)

      by The Fun Guy ( 21791 )
      That assumption of 200,000 miles is over the entire life of the car, right? At 20K/yr, this is roughly ten years. Will the photovoltaic panel continue to provide energy at the same efficiency over 10 years? Doubtful. Solar panels degrade in efficiency over time, maybe by as much as 10% per year.

      In the first year, that $2200 kit will save you a whopping $66, assuming that the manufacturer's claims are accurate. You would do better to put that $2200 in a savings account earning 3% and use the interest ($66) t
    • How many people have owned a Prius long enough to have to replace the batteries?

      I hear the batteries last several years, but they cost thousands of dollars to replace. Prius owners will end up buying their car several times over.

      And, consider the environmental damage that comes from having to dispose of the used batteries. Even 'recycling' the materials takes energy and costs money.

  • Economics working as usual. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by CyricZ ( 887944 ) on Monday February 06, 2006 @03:15PM (#14653011)
    So often we hear fuss about our petrol supply running out. Sure, perhaps someday it will. But like usual, basic economics will take care of the situtation for us. When one energy source becomes increasingly scarce, it will become more expensive. Thus other technologies, such as windmills and solar panels, will become relatively cheaper. And thus people and businesses will switch towards them, as in this case. Anyone with any economics background would have known that decades ago.

    • Re:Economics working as usual. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by gebbeth ( 720597 ) <slashdot@e[ ]genius.us ['vil' in gap]> on Monday February 06, 2006 @03:21PM (#14653086)
      So often we hear fuss about our petrol supply running out. Sure, perhaps someday it will. But like usual, basic economics will take care of the situtation for us. When one energy source becomes increasingly scarce, it will become more expensive.

      Thats all well and good if all you use oil for is fuel. We use oil heavily in the production of all sorts of products, including plastics and a whole plethora of petrochemicals. We should curtail our oil user as a fuel now so that we can continue to use oil for its other users without having to pay 5 times the current price for a plastic toothbrush.

      • But such curtailing will happen automatically. As oil becomes more scarce, the price will rise. And thus will rise the prices of products which require oil for their production. So the price of plastics will rise, for instance. People will begin to choose relatively cheaper alternatives. So your toothbrush will likely cost a dollar. But it may consist of a wooden handle, rather than a plastic one.

      • So we make wooden toothbrushes. :) And make more things from wood. It's an excuse to plant more trees, wood looks and feels nicer and it biodegrades a tad better than plastic. Can also make common things like that from ceramics and other materials. Heck, I *hate* plastic bathroom/kitchen stuff. Wood, ceramic or glass for me, please.
    • It's a nice idea, but oil and petrol will be available for a long time. The
      problem is one of stability of supply. If the oil is available, then it becomes
      uneconomic to shift to supply anything else. This is fine, of course, until
      the oil becomes unavailable in the short term; we can't just switch to wind
      power overnight.

      If you want an example of this, you can look at the various electricity
      utilities since they became deregulated in the first flush of neo-con fervour.
      Since that time the amount of spare generat
    • And this new energy system is going to appear in a flash of capitalist magic? People (and when I say people I mean ME and YOU not some imaginary person who may or may not exist) have to actually do the work of discovering and designing and refining new systems to replace old systems. They have to be made to be ready before the old system fails rather than hoping that they apparate when it does.
      So, if you don't care about solar and other alternative energies, go ahead and live your little life, but don't sc
    • But like usual, basic economics will take care of the situtation for us.

      Yes, but letting the market take care of itself is like going with the "no lube" option. Sure, both options hurt, but sometimes as an individual your best option is to be knowledgable of market changes and get that bottle of KY in advanced before Peak Oil shows up at your door with a big nasty grin on its face.

      Of course... If Peak Oil does come, petroleum jelly might be rather expensive...
    • Having been a renter for my entire life I'm now starting to look at buying.

      Because on of the first things I'm going to do is put a solar hot water and solar electic system on the sunny side of said house.

      Utilities are getting ridiculous here in the northeast. My gas bill jumped from $400 one month to $850 the next. Yet it was an overall warmer month and I vary temps from 55 when we're sleeping or not there, to 65 when we are there.

      Though in my case that doubling is either a gas leak, or someone els

  • Solar Energy Becoming More Pervasive... (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Since we got rid of that evil Mr. Burns and his sun blocker. Not to mention all that incessant hooting.
  • Solar Energy Becoming More Pervasive

    It's that "Global Warming" thing. The sun is out!

  • I thought that... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by TubeSteak ( 669689 ) on Monday February 06, 2006 @03:16PM (#14653022) Journal
    I thought that there are other more efficient ways to harness solar energy.

    Like polishing up a bunch of mirrors and focusing them on a source of water. You boil the water, steam spins a turbine and you get electricity.

    Do solar panels really give us the most bang for the buck?

    • Re:I thought that... (Score:5, Funny)

      by sonofagunn ( 659927 ) on Monday February 06, 2006 @03:22PM (#14653100)
      Yeah, that would fit on the roof of a Prius.
    • If you're looking to heat water, the focused mirrors on pipe approach works fairly well (or just paint something black and move pipe water through it). Essentially you're just using various tricks to store heat produced from sunlight in a fairly efficient manner.

      If you're looking at powering televisions and radios, though, you need to have electricity. Photovoltaics generally work best for that. Turning heated water into electricity does work, though at a lower efficiency.

      There's other issues, of c
    • This is the start of a sound argument FOR public utilities in the American Western states to indulge in this kind of electricity generation. Whatever non-profitable-ness exists in such a system can be laid to rest by having it publicized.

      You'd figure that companies would have built many of these facilities to serve the overloaded California market. But they haven't. This clear example only proves that the "free market" does NOT apply to everything, and that public facilities are entirely valid in seve
    • Indeed. Back when (for perspective) I calculated the Iraq War as being worth about 105 replacement world trade towers, adjusted for inflation, I also calculated the investment in terms of solar energy. Using existing solar boiler technology (in use in smallish generator arrays) it came to about 5% of our totaly energy use per year of all sources of energy, coal + solar + nuclear + oil.

      In short, by now we have doubled the spending that was based on and we could have had upwards of 10% of our energy from gr
    • I believe you are correct in that solar towers are more efficient. But I think the reason the military is using solar panels is three fold.

      First, in the event of an attack it would be drop a set of solar panels into a bunker then drop a tower with steaming hot water down into silo.

      Second, a series of panels produce a lot less heater. Without a central source of heat, heat seekers would have trouble locking onto target.

      Third the panels would stretch out over miles and work independent of each other. If an
  • What driving conditions are they talking about? Is this just driving around or is the the typical work commute -- drive to work, sit in a parking lot all day, drive home?
    • Hm, with the right Hybrid car that situation, as long as it's sitting in the sun all day, the gas engine would probably not kick in if you live decently close to work. That'd be good gas savings. =) 5 days out of the week maybe a gallon or two. I forget which but some Hybrids kick their gas engine on only when the need more energy. If you did it right(no quick starts, etc..) you could even avoid burning fuel at all, depending on rain or not, etc...

  • Solar is big.. (Score:2, Insightful)

    by dotpavan ( 829804 )
    .. remember the alternative sun being created by (or attempted by) the Chinese? But, solar and wind energy (unlike say Hydrogen) are so region specific, that they impose problems for wide-spread acceptability. And there arent any means found to store them successfully.
    • I can't believe you got moderated up for this drivel.

      .. remember the alternative sun being created by (or attempted by) the Chinese?

      No, I don't remember the Chinese trying to create a star.

      But, solar and wind energy (unlike say Hydrogen) are so region specific, that they impose problems for wide-spread acceptability.

      Hydrogen isn't an energy source, it's energy storage (a battery). Wind and solar are energy sources, not storage methods. The two are not mutually exclusive, nor inextricably tied to each othe

  • That's fine and dandy that the military will be benefitting from green energy.. but how about consumers? Is this why the pentagon's budget is roughly $400,000,000,000.00 ? Because they get to spend spend spend spend on any damn project they like.. what does this have to do with protecting the country from tur'ists?

    Fuck that shit... build the fucking array of photo cells and then reroute to energy straight to the heart of Vegas. You know how fucking expensive it is to run an air-conditioner during th
    • By having the gov. support projects like this, it will help fund future projects that will be more ambitious that will help move us off a oil based economy. Right now, America is very vunerable to the price (and probable future boycott) of oil.

      Once this project is near done, you can bet that this group will line up Vegas and a few other cities in the area to take more energy from them. If not them, then california will.

      Finally, keep in mind that the military needs access to energy. These solar panel will

    • Just good sense (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Brunellus ( 875635 )

      Any system that simplifies or minimizes the logistical load on any military installation or deployment is good for the military. For them, the issue isn't so much the absolute cost, but the availability of electric power when they might need it. Might not have been trivial in an age where field telephones could be energized by hand cranks...but considering the amount of information technology that goes to war with a post-modern army, it's not a bad thing for the guys in uniform to be investigating. If ph

  • I'm looking for the option to solar cook turkey burgers while driving through a desert. No need to stop off at McDonalds a hundred miles away when you stop off the side of the road to fix a burger.

  • will they stay stuck? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by DeveloperAdvantage ( 923539 ) on Monday February 06, 2006 @03:20PM (#14653077) Homepage
    I suppose at 0.6mm thick and with "aircraft grade adhesive" they must stick very well, but I still can't shake the image of these going flying off while driving on the expressway. Certainly a step in the right direction though.
  • The United States Military, powered by PBR!

  • What about Stirling Engines? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by AK Marc ( 707885 ) on Monday February 06, 2006 @03:26PM (#14653139)
    I thought http://www.stirlingenergy.com/ [stirlingenergy.com] was a better solution

  • Facts don't see to match hype. (Score:5, Informative)

    by pdawson ( 89236 ) on Monday February 06, 2006 @03:26PM (#14653141)
    Sadly, based on my understanding of the product described in the article, I don't see any way it can achieve any real MPG improvement. It only charges the small accessory 12V battery used for starting the car and running the power accessories(AC, steering, radio, etc). It provides no juice to the 28 200V main battery bank modules that power the engine.
    • I did see a similar product recently from a link from a different site (not sure if this is the same one, since we've killed their server)-- and it worked by charging a *separate* 12v battery system. The problem was that they didn't want to screw with directly charging the hybrid battery since the controls were not designed to do that while the car was off. So they add another battery to store up the solar energy, which then dumps into the big battery (presumably through some sort of voltage conversion) w

  • Make it a nice even $2500 (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Marxist Hacker 42 ( 638312 ) * <seebert42@gmail.com> on Monday February 06, 2006 @03:27PM (#14653153) Homepage Journal
    And include some extra Li-Ion battery capacity and a plug-in bridge rectifier so that it's solar-and-grid-and-gas, and this would be *really* interesting for a dealership add-on. I'm willing to bet you could push it to nearly 25% increase in efficiency.
  • ...and will provide clean energy for the US military.

    Until the first big hail storm, that is. (grin)

    But in all seriousness, how do such systems stand up to severe weather, particularly large hail?

  • Slashdotted! (Score:5, Funny)

    by Frazbin ( 919306 ) on Monday February 06, 2006 @03:51PM (#14653383)
    Looks like a CLOUD passed over their SERVER FARM!

    Ha! Ha ha! Ha! Ha, ha ha! Ha ha, ha, ha!

    Ah, renewable energy! Endless mirth!

  • Hydrogen Farming (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Nom du Keyboard ( 633989 ) on Monday February 06, 2006 @04:19PM (#14653701)
    I think it would make more sense to put solar cells out in the desert (there's lots of square miles of desert) near water and existing natural gas pipelines. Use the sunlight to make hydrogen, oxygen, and heavy water. Ship the hydrogen through the natural gas system (yes you can do this) as a substitute for natural gas. Take the oxygen away in tanker trucks for industrial use, and sell the heavy water to the government. There is no pollution, demand peaks, or major changes necessary to make use of this resource.

    Then pay me my commission on this idea that I never hear talked about otherwise in any serious manner.

  • Put solar on your house, not the car (Score:4, Interesting)

    by protonbishop ( 516957 ) on Monday February 06, 2006 @04:36PM (#14653861)
    disclaimer: that's what I do(I have a electric car, so I plug it in at night).

    Putting solar cells on your car is dumb:

    1. deal with aerodynamics (not a problem with my house)
    2. can't orient cells correctly (hard enough finding a close parking space, now you have to have one in the sun, with a WSW tilt (for us northern hemispherians)
    3. ANY SHADE across solar panels, even a tree branch, dramatically decreases its efficiency (like having one dead battery in your flashlight: the whole thing fails).
    4. size matters... 1kW system is about 120 square feet -- that's just not going to power much of a car. Consider 400wh to power car one mile & assume you get 5 equivalent hours/day parking & 30 square foot car top. That's enough power to drive 4 miles when the sun shines.

    Having PV grid-tied, means you feed electricity onto the grid at typically peak usage times, then recharge your car at night at off peak rates.

  • Quite a bit... (Score:3, Funny)

    by DerekLyons ( 302214 ) <fairwater@@@gmail...com> on Monday February 06, 2006 @04:52PM (#14654016) Homepage
    So solar power goes from providing 1x10-1000000000 of our power supply to providing 1.1x10-1000000000, that's a *lot* more prevalent - yes!

Slashdot Top Deals

Pascal is not a high-level language. -- Steven Feiner

Close