Hello Tesla sedan ...goodbye 335

[ChrisV]

Originally Posted by Vudoo4u2

I'll make this really simple for the people out there hell bent on electric cars:

Youre right, they dont produce emissions themselves. But aside from the occasional dude who lives in a 100% hydropower area...and there arent many of us that do...

And as was mentioned above, cleaning up one central emissions source is vastly easier than cleaning up millions of remote mobile point sources. So while they may not be 100% perfect, they are vastly closer to 100% perfect than ICE vehicles can get.

if you want to power the entire US fleet of vehicles with electricty, you would have to build and run 27 NEW nuclear power plants to take care of that kind of electric consumption.

The entire US fleet is 200 million plus vehicles. Even if every manufacturer switched over to 100% electric car production, at current manufacturing ability, it would take a couple decades of new car sales to replace the fleet. At NORMAL replenishing rates, it would take 30+ years to do so. Please, don't act like the entire fleet could be replaced overnight, or that the infrastructure would have to be changed overnight to accomodate said replacement.

I'd bet that over 30 years, you could probably upgrade the grid to handle it, considering many places, like California (where a huge chunk of the current vehicle population is) can deal with replacement of over half their current fleet with electrics without adding a single powerplant, just by using smart monitors to control recharging during off-peak hours for many consumers. Considering that no one has the manufacturing capability to replace even half the fleet within the decade even if they started selling now and operated at maximum capacity, I really don't see where the argument about "well, we don't have the electric capacity now" actually has any bearing on the issue!

Electric cars are a pipedream if you think theyre going to replace everything with it. Youre nuts. Try taking a look at your power bill after you fill up that car of yours, and do yourself a favor, dont get caught somewhere in the middle of the road near corn fields with low "fuel"...might not be such a sweet trip.

someday...someday controlled nuclear fusion will solve our problems...for now...start loading up on turbos, because thats what every manufacturer is going to turn to to reach the emissions standards inpending in 2014. Cheap, and can improve mileage quickly. Electric cars arent legit yet...

Electric cars certainly ARE "legit" for the size of the market that can currently be built for. 1% of the current fleet is 2 million units. How long would it take to MAKE 2 million units, even if you could sell 100k units a year? 100k units a year would be a sales success, and it would take 20 years of 100k per year sales to sell 2 million units, which is only 1% of the current motoring marketplace! We don't require cars that are aimed at 1% of the marktplace to be perfect for everyone as it is (for example, we don't require 3 series BMWs to be good for towing horse trailers, and we don't require pickup trucks to be good for autocross use), so why do people like you require electric cars to be perfect for every possible buyer in the marketplace in order to be viable to manufacture and sell?

MOST commuters travel less than 30 miles a day. An electric car would be a viable commuter car for them. Even if the Volt sold 100k copies a year, it would barely make a dent in the section of the market that can actually effectively use it's ability.

[Vudoo4u2]

1) Are you familiar with nuclear waste cleanup? Most likely not, and being that a large portion of our electricity comes from nuclear plants, ill assure you, its not too great

2) I'm not pretending that we need to replace a fleet overnight. I'm saying, even if you run all the current plants at full capacity, you wont meet the total electricity requirement of replacing all the cars in the US. So basically, knowing that this is a 20-30 year project if it were to actually start today, you would still need to build 27 more NEW nuclear power plants (of the type we have technology to create today) in order to satisfy an entire fleet in 30 years. And I am aware, you would have 30 years to build these plants, you cannot make our current plants "more efficient" to satisfy this amount of electricity required..its impossible unless you want rolling blackouts every 5 minutes (and even then...)

My point was that we dont have the electric capacity now, and even in the next 30 years we wont have the electric capacity to power such a fleet unless there is a breakthrough in electric production on a mammoth scale. And this is my bet, that in the next century, contained nuclear fusion will be the discovery that changes the world much like the wheel and the first light bulb. But we havent solved that problem yet, and so we cannot produce enough electricity to feed an entire fleet of cars even if you had 30 years to do it. NO ONE will produce 27 more nuclear plants over 30 years here, it wont happen, so you need some breakthrough in production of electricity to even consider this being viable over the next 30 years no matter how much you want to make our current sources more efficient.

3) I was making a general statement about the success of electric cars today. The united states does not posess the capacity, nor the low cost of electricity to make an electric car any more efficient for you to run than a fuel sipping gasoline one. And I imagine every manufacturer in the world will prove this to you by continuing to make gasoline powered cars b/c of many reasons (and none of them are because electric cars arent good, or viable as a vehicle). There are no centralized refueling stations, and while the average person has a 30 mile commute or less, and an electric car would work for them. There is still that question of, does this electricity cost less then gas, and does it produce less pollution (including the pollution created when making electricity), and I am positive you will find that the answer to that question is currently NO.

[jeremyc74]

Originally Posted by Vudoo4u2

I'll make this really simple for the people out there hell bent on electric cars:

Youre right, they dont produce emissions themselves. But aside from the occasional dude who lives in a 100% hydropower area...and there arent many of us that do...

if you want to power the entire US fleet of vehicles with electricty, you would have to build and run 27 NEW nuclear power plants to take care of that kind of electric consumption.

Now dont get me wrong, if we can solve nuclear fusion in a stable contained environment, that wont be a problem...but for now? Electric cars are a pipedream if you think theyre going to replace everything with it. Youre nuts. Try taking a look at your power bill after you fill up that car of yours, and do yourself a favor, dont get caught somewhere in the middle of the road near corn fields with low "fuel"...might not be such a sweet trip.

someday...someday controlled nuclear fusion will solve our problems...for now...start loading up on turbos, because thats what every manufacturer is going to turn to to reach the emissions standards inpending in 2014. Cheap, and can improve mileage quickly. Electric cars arent legit yet...

Localized production of solar electricity will eliminate the need for nuclear power of any kind. If you covered every flat roof in this country with solar panels right now, our energy problems would cease to exist.

The future of energy is solar. It's the ONLY source that makes any sense. Nearly everything else (wind, biofuels, hydroelectric, ect) is an indirect form of solar. Right now, as I type these, the plans are in place to increase PV production in this country by nearly 10 fold. In 5 years time you won't see a new home constructed that doesn't include a decent size solar installation. In 10 years time you'll see 20% or more of the nations commuter fleet driving full electric vehicles.

The technology already exists to make this happen. There's only one thing stopping it up until this point, and that's been money. With the massive push for clean energy that's happening right now, that problem has been solved. There are literally billions of dollars being thrown at this right now, and localized solar is where it's going.

[Vudoo4u2]

I think that in combination with nuclear fusion, solar power will be a good localized power source, but not one that can be implemented for all power needs. Commercial, vehicle etc. Considering the growing energy needs, solar panels cannot provide enough energy for everything we need power for. Nuclear fusion has no dirt, and it powers the sun....this issue will be solved soon enough, and youll see so much power available you wont know what to do with it

soon=relative term

[ChrisV]

Froma couple years ago:

'In California, where over half of the state's pollution comes from ICE vehicles, the overall mix of power plants is one of the cleanest in the country. Power plants burning cleaner fuels, such as natural gas, account for a major share of the state's electricity. In fact, natural gas facilities in California emit 40 times less NOx than existing coal plants in the Northeast (2). Renewable sources such as hydro, solar, wind, and geothermal produce a respectable share of the electricity generated in California.

Taking advantage of California's abundance of sunlight, several utilities are using Solar Charge Ports to charge EVs. Charge Ports are facilities that have an array of solar panels placed strategically on the roof of the structure. The solar panels convert sunlight into electricity where it is distributed to the vehicles or the adjacent building's power supply. On cloudy days, the building supplies the electricity to charge the EVs. Charge Ports are in operation in several cities in California including Diamond Bar, Azusa, and Santa Monica.

Because California has a mix of cleaner fuels and renewable sources, several studies have concluded that improvements in air quality can be achieved easily by plugging in to EVs.

The California Air Resources Board (CARB) estimates that EVs operating in the Los Angeles Basin would produce 98 percent fewer hydrocarbons, 89 percent fewer oxides of nitrogen, and 99 percent less carbon monoxide than ICE vehicles.

In a study conducted by the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, EVs were significantly cleaner over the course of 100,000 miles than ICE cars. The electricity generation process produces less than 100 pounds of pollutants for EVs compared to 3000 pounds for ICE vehicles.

Many EV critics remain skeptical of such findings because California's mix of power plants is relatively clean compared to that in the rest of the country. However, in Arizona where 67 percent of power plants are coal-fired, a study concluded that EVs would reduce greenhouse gases such as CO2 by 71 percent.

A study conducted by the Union of Concerned Scientists found that EVs in the Northeast would reduce CO emissions by 99.8 percent, volatile organic compounds (VOC) by 90 percent, NOx by 80 percent, and CO2 by as much as 60 percent.

According to the Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management (NESCAUM) study, use of EVs results in significant reductions of carbon monoxide, greenhouse gases, and ground level ozone in the region, with magnitudes cleaner than even the cleanest ULEV."

And more to the point on how many power plants we need...

'Many critics ask how this country could possibly support millions of EVs on today's existing power grid. The Electric Power Resource Institute (EPRI) estimates that this country has the ability to support 50 million EVs without building any more power plants. Another study puts this number closer to 20 million. Even so, 20 million EVs is only 10 percent of today's fleet of nearly 200 million cars. Thousands more could be added if they are charged at night during off-peak hours. Twenty million EVs, each with 100,000 miles on the odometer, would reduce CO2 emissions in this country by 500 million tons without building more power plants.

Southern California Edison (SCE) estimates that it has enough off-peak capacity to refuel up to 2 million cars, 25 percent of the area's automobiles. SCE estimates it will only need to add 200 megawatts of capacity by 2008 to accommodate EVs. "

And of course, as power production goes, tech right now is pretty close to reliable alternate fusion using plasma, with a couple new tokamaks being built. In the next couple decades, that power source could be viable.

Of course, as we run low on oil, the argument becomes moot: if we want to keep having personal transportation, it's gonna have to not be gasoline powered.

[jeremyc74]

Originally Posted by Vudoo4u2

I think that in combination with nuclear fusion, solar power will be a good localized power source, but not one that can be implemented for all power needs. Commercial, vehicle etc. Considering the growing energy needs, solar panels cannot provide enough energy for everything we need power for. Nuclear fusion has no dirt, and it powers the sun....this issue will be solved soon enough, and youll see so much power available you wont know what to do with it

soon=relative term

The big difference is that if you produce solar electricity locally (meaning on the roof of your home or business) there's zero transmission loss, and no monthly charge. The reason it's not being pushed more is because the energy companies can't make money off it. You buy the equipment, and you're done. With current grid tied home systems you can reduce the electricity cost to near zero for under $30k (government incentives vary from place to place though). That's not something the power companies are really interested in, no matter what they say.

[carve]

Originally Posted by jeremyc74

What technical reason would that be?

The IC drivetrain and generator is a lot of extra weight (most of the time dead weight), which requires bigger electric motors, which require more power to run. Batteries are a tradeoff. Batteries designed for high energy storage density tend to not have a very good power density, and vice versa. The volt needs higher power density due to the added pork it hauls around and because it needs a smaller battery pack with the power of a bigger pack. Because these high-power batteries have poor energy density, you need more of them, adding even more weight, and so on. If they made it pure electric, it'd be lighter and use higher energy density, batteries, but MORE of them to achieve the same power output. So, a pure electric volt might only require a battery pack that is ~50% to 100% bigger/more expensive for many times the 40 mile range. Furthermore, the cycling of your batteries would mostly be a very small % of their capacity, making them last a lot longer.

Also, the Volts drivetrain flat out sucks. Having a seperate generator is adding a really expensive part, and the motor can ALREADY function as a generator. Furthermore, in generator mode, the power goes straight from the generator to the motor- it doesn't charge the battery. The generator doesn't generate as much power as the battery pack, so the car is slower under generator power. If they'd only included a transmission or had the IC motor drive the wheels, they'd have a car with 2x the acceleration performance, lower cost, and the ability to charge it's own batteries. This car will be a disaster. They should've just updated the EV1 with modern safety features, a Lithium battery, and a new body.

[carve]

Electric is the future of most cars. First off, it is cleaner to charge off the grid than burning gas (although if it's coal-fired, not by much directly, although I'll show you a loophole to this momentarily). However, most cars will be charged at night, off peak. Coal plants are designed to operate at full power. They take forever to throttle down, and operate less efficiently once you've done it. Consequently, charging at night would require essentially no extra coal to be burned, and no extra load on the grid- free power!

Because of coal's inability to throttle, intermittent alternative energy sources like wind and solar, which are unpredictable, are often used very inefficiently. If we have a "smart grid", when the wind starts blowing or the sun starts shining, we could have all the battery chargers come on to soak up this extra power. During a heat wave, there's even the potential to have the parked cars power the grid momentarily, elliminating blackouts.

Furthermore, we already have an electric infrastructure- a major hurdle for other alternative fuels. To top it off, once all the cars are electric we can use a myriad of energy sources to provide the electricity. This shelters us from the volatility of special fuels like petro, and it allows huge numbers of drivers to take advantage of the latest power technologies right away instead of having to rebuild all the cars again. They're the ultimate in fuel flexibility!

Hopefully we'll master fusion one day, but in the mean time we should go nuke as a stop gap. Modern reactors are incredibiliy safe, and if we used breeder reactor technology like France does, you get many times the energy out of your fuel AND eliminate much of the waste. An antiquated law is the only thing that prevents us from doing this. The main reason reactors are expensive are the legal battles to get them built, but I think this'll eventually change.

Electric FTW! We have a ways to go though before cars like the Model S can meet their claims.

Hopefully Tesla will be able to buy one of these shuddered GM factories to save some time and money.

[adrian1480]

glad people are on the Electric bandwagon.

and I hope to make the Model S my next car as well. I think it's made of win.

[Sniz]

glad to see you guys honestly debating/discussing this.

we all need it.

[jeremyc74]

Originally Posted by Joey Babs

Electric cars are a lazy diversion. Yea great its going take the emphasis off of consuming oil but they are harmful to the environment and arent a practical alternative. We need hydrogen powered cars, but if thats to be the case they need to run off as minimal an amount as possible. What ever the next commercialized source of energy maybe be it needs to be as efficient as possible in every facet of life it effects. Also what about our love of classic cars and the cars we will buy in the near future. There has to be a fuel source that will supplement those needs as well, something that will replace the oil we use today. A bioavaliable and biodegradable product that we can produce here and will run traditional gasoline engines. Im not saying its easy but damn do we need a change, 3-5 bux a gallon in the states during the summer certainly puts a dent in the wallet when you like to drive. If they get it right someone stands to make a big difference in this world and also make a great deal of money doing it. I don't think Telsa is the future, I think its a hopeful gimmick/opportunity to capitalize on a fad and naive public. We can't make the same mistake again as we did with our super dependence on oil. For those that say its a cleaner source of energy what do you think shuttles the electricity to the source your pulling it from? Not anything that is uber clean thats for sure. And imagine the world depending on electric power and what a problem that could pose. Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhh someone do soemthing LOL /endrant

Oh God! Fuck George Bush for convincing people hyrdrogen was some sort of alternative fuel. It's not, and it never will be. Hydrogen is nothing more than a means of storage, and a poor one at that. Seperating it from the stuff it bonds to is, and always will be an energy negative process.

Do you know how the vast majority of hydrogen is produced? Electrolysis. There's much more energy lost producing hydrogen with electricity and then using it to power a car than to just use the electricity to directly power it.

There are currently completely clean ways to produces electricity with nothing but cost standing in the way, and that hurdle is shinking by the day with grid parity (the point where it's just as cheap to produce electricity with solar as it is to buy it from the power companies) coming in the next decade.

[jeremyc74]

Originally Posted by Bryan0102

take a drive over to sudbury

the nickel mined there goes into the teslas batteries.

mmm acid rain never tasted so good

Stop propagating BS like this. That hasn't been the case in decades, and well before any hybrid or electric car was on the road.

For anyone who doesn't know what he's talking about, Sudbury is a nickel processing facility that was once the scene of an environmental disaster. It’s a common talking point for who are against hybrids but don’t really know shit about the subject because they read an article on the internet with some old pictures attached to it and didn’t bother to check their source.


Here's the real truth:

Wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inco_Superstack

And here’s the withdrawal that the original source posted after they were corrected by outraged readers who actually knew better.

http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/news/a...a-factory.html

[lib]

Originally Posted by jeremyc74

Localized production of solar electricity will eliminate the need for nuclear power of any kind. If you covered every flat roof in this country with solar panels right now, our energy problems would cease to exist.

While I think the best possible source for us to gather energy is the Sun we are not yet at the point where we can do so on the required scale.

Once solar cells are smaller, cheaper, more durable and MUCH more efficient we'll be there. When the day comes I'll be one of the first to run out and use them. Sadly we aren't there yet.

This brings up a question I ran into today. What happens when you're stuck in a hail storm while driving a new Prius with the solar panel roof? You definitely can't PDR those things

[jeremyc74]

Originally Posted by lib

While I think the best possible source for us to gather energy is the Sun we are not yet at the point where we can do so on the required scale.

Once solar cells are smaller, cheaper, more durable and MUCH more efficient we'll be there. When the day comes I'll be one of the first to run out and use them. Sadly we aren't there yet.

This brings up a question I ran into today. What happens when you're stuck in a hail storm while driving a new Prius with the solar panel roof? You definitely can't PDR those things

What makes you say "we're not there yet"? There are already thousands of installations in use right now. The real issue at the moment is production capacity and TRUST ME there are more minds at work on that right now than you can imagine.

The worlds solar production capacity is on pace to double every two years for the next decade. Economy of scale will bring the price down to the point where incentives are no longer needed for it to make sense, and every new home constructed will have a solar installation. Mark my words, you'll start seeing it on a large scale basis within 3 years.

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by EmPower

You want to stop pollution and global warming, shift your focus to airliners and ships.

Completely wrong. Presently in the US the amount of CO2 produced of the total is:

Cars: 33%
Airplanes: 3.5%

Globally shipping produces twice the CO2 as aviation.

There is also good evidence that the shading effect from contrails counters the warming effect from the CO2.

No matter what cars are a huge part of the picture.

[lib]

Originally Posted by jeremyc74

What makes you say "we're not there yet"?

I'll claim "we're there" when the technology finally matures. They're making great strides on all fronts but there is still a long way to go before it's as cheap, durable, efficient and pervasive as I would like. Currently it's still a fairly new technology (yes, it's been around for many years - that has nothing to do with being a mature technology).

As for the production capacity you mention. It isn't an issue IMO. When the technology reaches the level I'm hoping it will the demand will justify plenty of production capacity. Besides, within the next decade or two you'll see a shift of CPU/Mem/etc mfg away from silicon. That should free up more supply of raw materials for solar if solar is still using silicon at the time. If the technology is mature by then we should be all set (though, making these things is ridiculously toxic - it's kind of shameful when I look at it but there's nothing else we can do at the moment. Hopefully we can find something that will also be a bit cleaner as well.)

As for smart minds working on the problem... That's exactly why I have faith that the technology will absolutely reach a level that meets my requirements within the next decade or two.

[ChrisV]

Originally Posted by swamp2

Completely wrong. Presently in the US the amount of CO2 produced of the total is:

Cars: 33%
Airplanes: 3.5%

Globally shipping produces twice the CO2 as aviation.

There is also good evidence that the shading effect from contrails counters the warming effect from the CO2.

No matter what cars are a huge part of the picture.

He's not just talking CO2 (which is really not as much of a pollutant as, say, sulfer and NOx). Data from maritime industry insiders based on engine size and the quality of fuel typically used by ships and cars shows that just 15 of the world's biggest ships may now emit as much pollution as all the world's 760m cars. Low-grade ship bunker fuel (or fuel oil) has up to 2,000 times the sulphur content of diesel fuel used in US and European automobiles. Cars driving 15,000km a year emit approximately 101 grammes of sulphur oxide gases (or SOx) in that time. The world's largest ships' diesel engines which typically operate for about 280 days a year generate roughly 5,200 tonnes of SOx.

http://wbztv.com/projectmass/project....2.720615.html

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/...ollution_x.htm

http://www.seattlepi.com/local/15732...pollute20.html

[jeremyc74]

Originally Posted by lib

I'll claim "we're there" when the technology finally matures. They're making great strides on all fronts but there is still a long way to go before it's as cheap, durable, efficient and pervasive as I would like. Currently it's still a fairly new technology (yes, it's been around for many years - that has nothing to do with being a mature technology).
.

You can't define mature. It's a moving target that will never happen. The key is viability, and we're there. Solar cells are warrantied for 20-30 years right now. They're plenty durable, and the efficiency isn't an issue in most applications.

How about a few examples?:

http://www.namastesolar.com/photo_ga...f.html#top_pix

Click the links under the pics and you can see real time output. Pretty cool site.

Originally Posted by lib

As for the production capacity you mention. It isn't an issue IMO. .

Right now the only thing standing in the way of mass implementation of PV installations is price, and the reason the price hasn't come down is that production capacity is exceeded by demand. There's a 3 month wait for panels for larger installations.

That's not an opinion. The company I work for builds high end automation equipment and we're diving into the solar market head first because the demand is so high. There are so many PV production facilities under construction right now it boggles the mind. The market will be flooded with manufacturers in a few years, and the prices will drop like a rock.

The energy companies don't like it, but it's going to happen anyway.

Remember where you heard it first.

[TexAg06]

Originally Posted by swamp2

Completely wrong. Presently in the US the amount of CO2 produced of the total is:

Cars: 33%
Airplanes: 3.5%

Globally shipping produces twice the CO2 as aviation.

There is also good evidence that the shading effect from contrails counters the warming effect from the CO2.

No matter what cars are a huge part of the picture.

CO2 is not a harmful gas. You want to stop real pollution. Go right ahead. I am all for cleaner air. Get rid of Sulpher Dioxide. Benzene gas. Etc, etc.

[lib]

Technologies can absolutely mature, though it is definitely a moving target that no one will ever see clearly until well after it happens. In this particular case I should have said "begins to mature" instead of "mature." Is this particular technology there yet? I hope not, if it is it will have let me down a little because I have much bigger hopes for it.

Originally Posted by jeremyc74

They're plenty durable,
http://www.namastesolar.com/photo_ga...f.html#top_pix

Glass roof, meet TX hail:
http://www.e90post.com/forums/showthread.php?t=245405
http://media.kickstatic.com/kickapps...ap_320X240.jpg

Sure, if you add enough protective layering they'd survive but that layer adds to the size, weight, complexity and cost. Under it all the base is still extremely fragile for something that needs to survive the elements. If that's the best we can do then I guess it will have to suffice but I personally have higher hopes.

Originally Posted by jeremyc74

and the efficiency isn't an issue in most applications.

Efficiency is ALWAYS an issue. In this particular application it dictates the amount of area that must be dedicated.

When you're only trying to supply power to something with a roof then it's fine, but I want to see this applied on a much wider scale.

Originally Posted by jeremyc74

The energy companies don't like it, but it's going to happen anyway.

The smart ones get into these businesses at the ground floor and make a ton of money. What's not to like?

[jeremyc74]

Originally Posted by lib

Technologies can absolutely mature, though it is definitely a moving target that no one will ever see clearly until well after it happens. In this particular case I should have said "begins to mature" instead of "mature." Is this particular technology there yet? I hope not, if it is it will have let me down a little because I have much bigger hopes for it.

Glass roof, meet TX hail:
http://www.e90post.com/forums/showthread.php?t=245405
http://media.kickstatic.com/kickapps...ap_320X240.jpg

Sure, if you add enough protective layering they'd survive but that layer adds to the size, weight, complexity and cost. Under it all the base is still extremely fragile for something that needs to survive the elements. If that's the best we can do then I guess it will have to suffice but I personally have higher hopes.

Efficiency is ALWAYS an issue. In this particular application it dictates the amount of area that must be dedicated.

When you're only trying to supply power to something with a roof then it's fine, but I want to see this applied on a much wider scale.

The smart ones get into these businesses at the ground floor and make a ton of money. What's not to like?

Hail like that can damage cars, as you've proven. Does that mean you're never going to buy a car? Or never take it out? No.

Efficiency really isn't an issue, price is. There's plenty of wasted space that can have PVs installed already. Sure it would be nice if they were more compace, but does it really matter if you cover half the roof of a WalMart with them or all of it? Not really.

The energy companies don't like solar because once it's installed it cuts them out of the loop. There's no monthly bill that goes on forever like electric or gas. That's why they're against it. Their business model will be shot to hell once it takes off. If you covered every flat roof in this country with solar panels, you could stop generating electricity with coal and gas. How much wider does the scale need to be before we get started?

People saying "It's not there yet" is a cop out. It IS there, and the only thing holding it back is effort. Thankfully that's changing pretty rapidly.

[lib]

Originally Posted by jeremyc74

Hail like that can damage cars, as you've proven. Does that mean you're never going to buy a car? Or never take it out? No.

Correct. That does not mean I don't buy a car. That means I buy a garage. (Now I'm just being a smart ass )

Originally Posted by jeremyc74

Efficiency really isn't an issue, price is. There's plenty of wasted space that can have PVs installed already. Sure it would be nice if they were more compace, but does it really matter if you cover half the roof of a WalMart with them or all of it? Not really.

I'll say it again, efficiency is always an important issue. It is an integral factor in the price and has a strong effect on where and how it can be used.

As you increase efficiency you're able to provide the same level of power with less area. Less area means you purchase fewer physical devices. Fewer physical devices at a given cost per device (currently there's a lot of variability here, eventually it will become this simple) means the end user pays less for a given solution. As solutions begin to cost less you begin to see them in ever increasing volume.

Now, here's what I believe to be the root of the communication problem we're having in this conversation; I was not explicit enough with my original comment.

I am NOT saying you should not use solar for an application such as the roof of a Walmart or your typical home. We're finally at the point where that begins to make sense. Sure, in that application I would like to see more power from less size at less cost with more durability but we can currently get by with what we have in that application.

I'm simply saying that with the rate this technology is advancing it won't be very long before we can do much better than just throwing panels up on every rooftop. The panels will always be part of the solution but limiting yourself to only the panels is short-sighted.

We already have the first stages of transparent photovoltaic glass, photovoltaic paint, durable deformable photovoltaic plastics and countless other new photovoltaic implementations. IMO we'll "be there" very shortly when improvements in these new applications will allow pervasive use of photovoltaic materials.

Originally Posted by jeremyc74

The energy companies don't like solar because once it's installed it cuts them out of the loop. There's no monthly bill that goes on forever like electric or gas. That's why they're against it. Their business model will be shot to hell once it takes off.

Again, the smart companies that wish to remain in energy production and delivery can make a lot of money from this.

If someone is going to sit on their ass and not take advantage of advances in technology that directly effect their business then they'll absolutely loose their shirt. The ones that truly want to survive and are paying attention will spot these changes and adapt.

The easiest example? Companies that own powerlines. If they don't see these changes coming they'll fall flat on their face when their customers being producing their own power. If they're paying attention they'll realize there will be a need for load balancing across the newly formed distributed power generation network and there is money to be made providing such a service.

Originally Posted by jeremyc74

If you covered every flat roof in this country with solar panels, you could stop generating electricity with coal and gas. How much wider does the scale need to be before we get started?

People saying "It's not there yet" is a cop out. It IS there, and the only thing holding it back is effort. Thankfully that's changing pretty rapidly.

I'm not suggesting that we shouldn't get started right now. Getting started is the only way this technology can reach the expectations I have for it. I simply believe the form of this technology that finally replaces coal/gas/etc will look very different than what we have today.