Art_Prostitutes said:
Wait. Something about this makes me want to throw a fire-breathing wolverine at that scientist. Toward the end of the video he describes a model in which a user "sells" unused electtricity back to the electric company during night useage.

This makes no sense. The point of solar energy on this scale is pure energy independence. A revolutionary product like this will cause rates to rise. (Think of the way more hybrid vehicles on the road will cause gas prices to rise)When the consumer resells electricity back to an electric company you can make a safe bet that the price sold will be far less than the price bought during night useage.

This almost nullifies the impact of the product, because it seems to willingly couple itself with electric company supplementation instead of focusing on internal sustainability for the user which can be achived by simply harnessing and storing energy not used.

In the end: status quo maintained.

Art_Prostitutes said:
The short of it...
Coal supplies most of the energy in the United States, solar power will eliminate the need for coal consumption for electricity. (And have a significant impact on the atmosphere)Of course, this makes the need for electric companies superfluous. Energy companies know this, which is why solar power has been deemed...impractical for widespread use.

As I stated, the rate at which energy is sold, will not be eqitable for the consumer. So the user will not make "cash" in any sense of the word. Consumers will pay as they do now in an unregulated, archaic, market system at the expense of our planets future. I say that because someone else needs to know that the term "energy independence" applies to m ore than just oil.

Colinism said:

I don't know, I think your over simplifying it, the sun does not shine 24/7 and someone will still need to service the lines and lay down new ones. The companies will still be there it's simply the method of generation that will change. People renting an apartment will not be able to generate their own power they will still have to purchase it from somewhere. Now mind you Coal will go away eventually but those companies are not going anywhere.

Adroitbeing said:

There is ample reason to be excited about this breakthrough. Today, there are two primary sources for the production of electricity: coal and natural gas. Coal fired plants were most popular for many years but environmental concerns have made them expensive to construct. Natural gas fired plants are cleaner, but most residential energy concerns have managed to ensure that natural gas used for heating purposes takes precedent over the production of electricity AND natural gas is subject to wild price swings in the commodities market translating into inflation pricing at the consumer.

There are approximately 30 coal-fired power plants under consideration or some form of construction in the US - and many more planned worldwide. Many of these are replacing older, less efficient, smog producing facilities. Not so bad...except for three major issues.
1. If we enable the continued construction of coal-fired plants we still spew shit into the air AND for those countries participating in the Kyoto agreement, they give up carbon credits. That's a big deal for developing countries.
2. Those old coal fired plants don't simply rust away. No, the bright CEOs of those companies have figured out how to dismantle them and resell them to - yes, you guessed it - developing countries or regions.
3. Capital investment in infrastructure in this country is languishing. Look around at your bridges, your roads, your water treatment, etc. No one wants to raise money or spend money on the development of infrastructure; yet, out needs for things like electricity continue to grow.

So, while the excitement surrounding the use of this technology to rationalize our dependence on oil is warranted, that is a very long way off I'm afraid. I've heard estimates that 40% or more of the oil we purchase goes toward the production of plastic-like materials and has nothing to do with automobiles.

However, the company appears ready to demonstrate the ability to beat the cost per watt of coal fired plants by 20% at a minimum and perhaps as much as 30 or 40% when capitalized infrastructure costs are included. That is a very big fucking deal all by itself.

We gain access to lower cost electricity, we may be able to develop a virtual grid instead of relying on the antiquated model currently in use, and we stop wasting our time and money building plants that pollute our earth.

I may have my language terms incorrect, but I am struck by the irony that the first facility to produce electricity on a broad scale using this technology will be located on a former landfill. What do you think are the chances that a coal-fired power plant could make a similar move?

Colinism said:
Funny because I seem to remember a certain communist country or two that have caused MASSIVE environmental damage. Hrmmmmm I guess that nuclear plant that melted down in the former Soviet Union, they were communists right? Union of soviet socialist republics I think it was called? Anyhow they had that hardly mentionable nuclear disaster a while back. But I can only imagine had they been capitalists it would have all turned out like that devastating three mile Island disaster......


In all seriousness and yes I ask this of everyone who claims to be a communist or socialist or whatever, what makes you think that socialism will work any better than any other system?

CommunistCanuck said:

Now ignoring your insightless comment about socialism and jumping straight to that last question, I think the chances of building a coal power plant on former land fill is pretty good and I am sure removing garbage is allot less strenous on digging machinery then shale......

As for the rest of your response is all well and good but is not very useful if the product cannot ramp up to market demand, let alone the demand for environmental stability which was my main point in bringing up the developments in Sillicon technology as being better positioned to deliver considering the urgency of the environmental situation , rather then the economic expediency of preserving the floundering capitalist oil tanker.

The technological and industrial foundations for heading off even more extreme environmental catastrophe in the near future has been within our grasp in at least the last 20 years or more, capitalism is the main obstacle in implementing a rationalisation of economic life towards removing fossil fuels as our main energy supply.

Given the reighn of capitalism, one can pretty much reply to your 3 points succinctly:

1.the largest economic powers never signed up to Kyoto and consequently some of those same powers have sabotaged Bali as well.

2.Ditto

3.Guess 30 years and hundreds of billlions in dollars a year in Tax cuts for the rich werent such a good idea, nevermind an electoral system dependent on unreigned private donation and special interest groups.....

Also I am not sure of the prospects of a virtual power grid is, as I have never heard of such a thing, please feel free to enlighten me though.

And a return to the last point, how much more ironic would it be that this former landfill sight will also be a likely source for breeding of Dioxine (as are all former landfill sights that contain plastic, water and heat from decomposition), a major carcinogen and pose a threat to poisoning ground water supplies?

Thier is no shortage of such Irony in the world today.

Well if you want to get into the problem of nuclear contanimation, why not google the Mass of radioactive elements released into the atmosphere by burning coal, which apparently dwarfs the total production of nuclear waste from all nuclear power plants combined to date.
It is little factoids like this that are used by the nuclear industry to help convince people the neccessity of nuclear power, preffereably designs that have safety in mind when they were developed.
I am most certainly for the use of Nuclear power to help head off as quickly as possible the use fo fossil fuels.

As for your question, it is quite simple, mainly because a backward and illiterate flotsam of the russian empire nearly managed to overtake all but one of worlds major capitalists powers economically means that a revolution that completes itself internationally will save humanity from its own self destruction.