Comments for PayPal Founder Predicts: Solar Will Kick Coal's Ass at http://www.ecogeek.org , comment 1 to 18 out of 18 comments http://www.ecogeek.org Wed, 22 May 2013 06:56:16 +0100 FeedCreator 1.7.3 http://www.ecogeek.org/ecogeeks/1677#comment-15729 Might as well kill a whole bunch of birds with as few stones as possible... 1. Fischer-Tropsch process: Convert coal into jet fuel, diesel, and gasoline. Alternative energy sources are just not feasible for over 1/2 of the miles US drivers put in. Sure, 78% of drivers put in less than 40 miles a day commuting and running errands, but the 22% of us who do drive more (I serve a 5 county area - a typical trip for me is between 200 and 300 miles) put in about 50% of the miles driven. A hybrid is great in the city, but on the highway, they are no more efficient than vehicles of comparable size and weight. The Fischer-Tropsch process is feasible at about $4 per gallon, and the USAF is in the process of certifying ALL of its aircraft to burn fuel produced by the process. This process will also raise the demand for coal, which will raise its price and effectively lowering the price for alternative energy systems. The net result will be more solar, wind, and tidal systems, and fewer coal burning plants. 2. As solar and wind power comes on line, the demand for electrical storage will increase - alternative residential power systems rely extensively on batteries. Because of the increased demand, R D dollars will be pumped into battery manufacturers, advancing the state of the technology. These improved systems will make electrical cars not only feasible, but economical. The key to solar is not decreasing the cost - the key to solar is decreasing the cost relative to coal. Increasing the price of coal is FAR easier than decreasing the price of solar. - dave Sat, 05 Jul 2008 21:07:04 +0100 http://www.ecogeek.org/ecogeeks/1677#comment-13844 test post, sorry! - CTYankee Sat, 31 May 2008 08:15:22 +0100 http://www.ecogeek.org/ecogeeks/1677#comment-13736 How to store solar heat on a large scale http://news.cnet.com/8301-11128_3-9838555-54.html It's being done now. - jd anthnoy Thu, 29 May 2008 14:45:39 +0100 http://www.ecogeek.org/ecogeeks/1677#comment-13725 @Ge64, as you may have guessed, power is lost through transmission lines. The longer the distance, the greater the loss. Sending power across the globe would result in an incredible amount of power loss. But anyway, this is a non-issue. Just use solar power during the day and wind/nuclear/tidal/whatever at night. You don't need to store the electricity. - Ken Roberts Thu, 29 May 2008 12:31:13 +0100 http://www.ecogeek.org/ecogeeks/1677#comment-13717 Just think about how far solar has come since its inception and even just since its rise in popularity. Now put that in a Moore's law curve and look at where we will be in 30 years. - Brian Thu, 29 May 2008 10:12:21 +0100 http://www.ecogeek.org/ecogeeks/1677#comment-13708 We need to invest in Plasma Converters so that we kill two birds with one Plasma Converter! We will solve the problem of running out of landfill space and solve our energy needs problem. - Josh P Thu, 29 May 2008 08:45:49 +0100 http://www.ecogeek.org/ecogeeks/1677#comment-13700 The amount of PV being installed is climbing. Due to economies of scale that brings down the cost. As the cost comes down, that makes it more desirable to install PV. Plus, PV is actually much more efficient than, say, biofuels. Biofuels are about 1% efficient of sunlight, whereas PVs are already many times that, so you need much less land for it; and you can put PVs on roofs and so forth, whereas crops on roofs is harder. A lot of energy is used industrially during the day anyway so the day/night/cloudy issue isn't nearly as bad (you can use fossil fuels, wind or whatever). - Ian Woollard Thu, 29 May 2008 02:22:42 +0100 http://www.ecogeek.org/ecogeeks/1677#comment-13699 PV is old history, nano-tech solar cells will kick whatever silicon-based 80's technology you think the future is going to be built on. check out http://www.nanosolar.com/ and learn what's coming soon : ) - Matt Thu, 29 May 2008 01:41:38 +0100 http://www.ecogeek.org/ecogeeks/1677#comment-13698 Instead of storing the energy for use at night (which is inefficient), how about just putting part of your power stations on the other side of the earth? Wouldn't it be great if all countries could make one bittorrent-like net of solar power stations. Yeah, never mind - Ge64 Thu, 29 May 2008 00:56:30 +0100 http://www.ecogeek.org/ecogeeks/1677#comment-13697 Belief about the cost of PV ten years out is not rational. Obviously it will be much less costly. We do not know how much less and assumptions it will not be affordable are just guesses. - Dennis Allard Thu, 29 May 2008 00:37:49 +0100 http://www.ecogeek.org/ecogeeks/1677#comment-13695 "The price of solar is falling rapidly." Perhaps production costs, but certainly not costs to actually get a system installed. If anything our cost has gone up - what cost us about $7/W of generating capacity in 2005 is now about $8.50/W, and thats if we can get anyone to work with us on our relatively small projects. - Tony Thu, 29 May 2008 00:02:05 +0100 http://www.ecogeek.org/ecogeeks/1677#comment-13664 [quote]Solar needs to get cheaper... And then we need to figure out how to store the power so we can use it at night.[/quote] Hi, All that needs to be done to reduce the price of Solar Thermal is to start rolling it out. With economies of scale and incremental improvements the price can easily be competitive with Coal (when you include the cost of the Coal). Storing for nightime use is not a problem with Solar Thermal (its easy to store heat). This was first done in the 70's or 80's in the Mohave. The issue is storage for cloudy days. Cloudy days (and nightime) is when there is more Wind Energy so an affordable integrated wind and Solar Thermal grid is feasible. Best Wishes, Mitch - Mitchell Sink Wed, 28 May 2008 11:45:58 +0100 http://www.ecogeek.org/ecogeeks/1677#comment-13663 Hi Bill, I totally do not agree with you. Solar photovoltaics are indeed expensive and are far from being efficient, but solar heat is allready a good alternative to wind energy and the prices of concentrated solar heat are decresing rapidly. Check http://www.trecers.net/ for a nice view of the future of solar energy! - Kobayashi Wed, 28 May 2008 11:45:18 +0100 http://www.ecogeek.org/ecogeeks/1677#comment-13662 Cap and trade will help more to bring innovation to the market. - Enrique Wed, 28 May 2008 11:37:33 +0100 http://www.ecogeek.org/ecogeeks/1677#comment-13656 "The problem with the solar industry right now is that there are shortages of silicon (already at todays levels)." Actually not. New silicon plants have come on line in the last few months. "Solar is also the most expensive common renewable. Wind is the cheapest and should be pursued most aggressively." The price of solar is falling rapidly. IMHO we should be aggressively pursuing a variety of renewables including not only wind and solar but also wave, tidal, geothermal, and biogas/mass. The more we diversify and distribute our energy sources the less storage and transmission we will have to build. And the quicker we will be able to shut down dirty coal. - Bob Wallace Wed, 28 May 2008 09:39:19 +0100 http://www.ecogeek.org/ecogeeks/1677#comment-13651 My first thought was that he was being overly optimistic, then I remembered that Apple recently patented a technology that could be used for solar iPods [url]http://www.ecogeek.org/content/view/1671/83/[/url]. As I think about where solar is going it is not big solar farms for a standard electrical grid. It is on my neighbors garage, and on my iPod. I don't even need to actually power a device with solar to get the benefits. If I get 10% more battery life out of a laptop for only 10% more upfront I will go for it. Solar panels are lighter than batteries and the only other ways to get more time out of our portable devices is a larger battery or more efficient chipsets (Which I see as complementary.) If 100% of portable devices had embedded solar panels and 20% of homes had solar panels and LED lights became what CFL's are today... I think he is right on target. - David W. Keith Wed, 28 May 2008 07:59:05 +0100 http://www.ecogeek.org/ecogeeks/1677#comment-13650 Nothing wrong with aiming high, hopefully it will come true. Using compressors to store excess energy in the form of compressed air during the day and power generators at night may help with night time power needs. I think there is probably better ways to store power for the night though. - Dan Wed, 28 May 2008 07:34:16 +0100 http://www.ecogeek.org/ecogeeks/1677#comment-13648 This is a terribly ignorant thing to say. The problem with the solar industry right now is that there are shortages of silicon (already at todays levels). Solar is also the most expensive common renewable. Wind is the cheapest and should be pursued most aggressively. - Bill W Wed, 28 May 2008 07:04:44 +0100