http://www.engadget.com/2008/03/27/socal-edison-wants-to-cover-california-rooftops-in-solar-panels/ Engadget Comments for SoCal Edison wants to cover California rooftops with solar panels http://www.engadget.com/media/feedlogo.gif http://www.engadget.com en-us Copyright 2008 Weblogs, Inc. The contents of this feed are available for non-commercial use only. Blogsmith http://www.blogsmith.com/http://www.engadget.com/2008/03/27/socal-edison-wants-to-cover-california-rooftops-in-solar-panels/http://www.engadget.com/2008/03/27/socal-edison-wants-to-cover-california-rooftops-in-solar-panels/Mar 27th 2008 2:39PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/03/27/socal-edison-wants-to-cover-california-rooftops-in-solar-panels/http://www.engadget.com/2008/03/27/socal-edison-wants-to-cover-california-rooftops-in-solar-panels/Mar 27th 2008 2:43PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/03/27/socal-edison-wants-to-cover-california-rooftops-in-solar-panels/http://www.engadget.com/2008/03/27/socal-edison-wants-to-cover-california-rooftops-in-solar-panels/Mar 27th 2008 2:52PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/03/27/socal-edison-wants-to-cover-california-rooftops-in-solar-panels/http://www.engadget.com/2008/03/27/socal-edison-wants-to-cover-california-rooftops-in-solar-panels/Mar 27th 2008 2:55PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/03/27/socal-edison-wants-to-cover-california-rooftops-in-solar-panels/http://www.engadget.com/2008/03/27/socal-edison-wants-to-cover-california-rooftops-in-solar-panels/Mar 27th 2008 3:02PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/03/27/socal-edison-wants-to-cover-california-rooftops-in-solar-panels/http://www.engadget.com/2008/03/27/socal-edison-wants-to-cover-california-rooftops-in-solar-panels/
You really think that was the first time a big chunk of ice has broken off of Antarctica? Its definitely the first one shown and exaggerated by the media. How do you think Icebergs are made?]]>Mar 27th 2008 3:05PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/03/27/socal-edison-wants-to-cover-california-rooftops-in-solar-panels/http://www.engadget.com/2008/03/27/socal-edison-wants-to-cover-california-rooftops-in-solar-panels/Mar 27th 2008 3:09PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/03/27/socal-edison-wants-to-cover-california-rooftops-in-solar-panels/http://www.engadget.com/2008/03/27/socal-edison-wants-to-cover-california-rooftops-in-solar-panels/Mar 27th 2008 3:17PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/03/27/socal-edison-wants-to-cover-california-rooftops-in-solar-panels/http://www.engadget.com/2008/03/27/socal-edison-wants-to-cover-california-rooftops-in-solar-panels/
Since they so readily ignore heaps of continuous scientific evidence, I'm sure logic or reasoning will not work. ]]>Mar 27th 2008 3:22PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/03/27/socal-edison-wants-to-cover-california-rooftops-in-solar-panels/http://www.engadget.com/2008/03/27/socal-edison-wants-to-cover-california-rooftops-in-solar-panels/Mar 27th 2008 3:23PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/03/27/socal-edison-wants-to-cover-california-rooftops-in-solar-panels/http://www.engadget.com/2008/03/27/socal-edison-wants-to-cover-california-rooftops-in-solar-panels/Mar 27th 2008 3:23PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/03/27/socal-edison-wants-to-cover-california-rooftops-in-solar-panels/http://www.engadget.com/2008/03/27/socal-edison-wants-to-cover-california-rooftops-in-solar-panels/
Every single solitary current and proposed nuclear power plant is a gigantic money LOSER! They all operate on government subsidies. It's a crappy deal. Safe or not, nobody wants to provide insurance for them, making the costs as ridiculously high as they are.

Nobody wants to store the waste, and local governments fight tooth and nail to keep them away.

The list of reasons not to be a cheerleader for nuclear power goes on, and on, and on.

Then there's the foreign policy problem. We can't rightfully sit on our high horse and tell other countries they can't have nuclear power while at the same time we're building 400! It undermines our credibility. If we didn't have nuclear power plants to begin with, Iran wouldn't have a leg to stand on right now.

As if all that wasn't enough, your argument that they are safe is irrelevant. No amount of precautions can completely eliminate the threat of intentional sabotage (i.e. terrorist attack).]]>Mar 27th 2008 3:27PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/03/27/socal-edison-wants-to-cover-california-rooftops-in-solar-panels/http://www.engadget.com/2008/03/27/socal-edison-wants-to-cover-california-rooftops-in-solar-panels/Mar 27th 2008 3:30PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/03/27/socal-edison-wants-to-cover-california-rooftops-in-solar-panels/http://www.engadget.com/2008/03/27/socal-edison-wants-to-cover-california-rooftops-in-solar-panels/
Great point, besides the fact that power plants are naturally desired targets by our enemies, I think the problem is not the really the nuclear reactors, but the spent nuclear fuels. Only a small percentage of the nuclear fuel is actually used, if we were to rely solely on nuclear power, we would have a lot more nuclear waste. The government already has a difficult time dealing with the current level of nuclear waste. But if we are to find a viable solution in dealing with spent nuclear fuel, I'm sure this option would be more attractive. Maybe one day we'll be able reprocess spent nuclear fuel and put it back into the reactors at a much faster pace, where we wouldn't have to dig out whole mountains to store the waste.]]>Mar 27th 2008 3:41PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/03/27/socal-edison-wants-to-cover-california-rooftops-in-solar-panels/http://www.engadget.com/2008/03/27/socal-edison-wants-to-cover-california-rooftops-in-solar-panels/Mar 27th 2008 3:43PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/03/27/socal-edison-wants-to-cover-california-rooftops-in-solar-panels/http://www.engadget.com/2008/03/27/socal-edison-wants-to-cover-california-rooftops-in-solar-panels/
Yeah, we will eventually run out of uranium, but we have enough to last centuries, so for now it's all good. Not as good as hydrogen power, but certainly more efficient in terms of space and power output than harnessing the elements in the traditional sense. We will eventually run out of sun, to.]]>Mar 27th 2008 4:08PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/03/27/socal-edison-wants-to-cover-california-rooftops-in-solar-panels/http://www.engadget.com/2008/03/27/socal-edison-wants-to-cover-california-rooftops-in-solar-panels/Mar 27th 2008 4:10PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/03/27/socal-edison-wants-to-cover-california-rooftops-in-solar-panels/http://www.engadget.com/2008/03/27/socal-edison-wants-to-cover-california-rooftops-in-solar-panels/
]]>Mar 27th 2008 4:12PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/03/27/socal-edison-wants-to-cover-california-rooftops-in-solar-panels/http://www.engadget.com/2008/03/27/socal-edison-wants-to-cover-california-rooftops-in-solar-panels/
NIMBYism aside, the fully capitalized net present cost per MW of nuc is the highest of all energy forms when you account for all life cycle and security costs from cradle to grave.

so, nuke-fanatics.. your ultra-capitalist argument doesn't hold water, nor does your "environmental" argument, and your continuing denigration of conservation, green design, and climate change science is NOT winning you any points from the reality-based community.]]>Mar 27th 2008 4:18PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/03/27/socal-edison-wants-to-cover-california-rooftops-in-solar-panels/http://www.engadget.com/2008/03/27/socal-edison-wants-to-cover-california-rooftops-in-solar-panels/Mar 27th 2008 4:24PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/03/27/socal-edison-wants-to-cover-california-rooftops-in-solar-panels/http://www.engadget.com/2008/03/27/socal-edison-wants-to-cover-california-rooftops-in-solar-panels/
Actually they're not. Just because there are government subsidies doesn't mean it's a money loser. That's like saying "going to college is a huge waste of money because most students get scholarships or financial aid to help pay for it." Just because their is government help/incentives doesn't mean it's automatically a waste.

Solar is actually pretty decent, but the problem is that there's a large upfront investment which most people can't handle. Think of it this way: over the next 40 years you might pay $150,000 in electric bills, but if you invested $50,000 in solar arrays, you won't pay that $150k over the next 40 years. Technically a savings of $100,000. The problem is paying a couple hundred a month vs $50,000 up-front.

Saying that government shouldn't step in and assist seems like an asinine statement to me. Isn't that part of the whole point of being socialists? Together we can accomplish what we otherwise could not? Especially in this case where solar can not just save money over time, but has no byproducts and does not consume anything to operate. Also, the more effort we invest in a technology the better and cheaper it gets. I think we have a duty as human beings to invest in things like this. We should be working for a greater good instead of the bottom dollar. And in this case they are one in the same.]]>Mar 27th 2008 4:25PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/03/27/socal-edison-wants-to-cover-california-rooftops-in-solar-panels/http://www.engadget.com/2008/03/27/socal-edison-wants-to-cover-california-rooftops-in-solar-panels/
And therein lies one of the problems. Nuclear is cheaper, until you add in costs of insurance and such which are caused by fear mongering. Such is the state of affairs at the moment. That's the core of what I think should change. It would be cheaper if society was different. At any rate, a vastly cleaner energy is more important to me. If nuclear plants were allowed to be in urban centers (and why not, no harmful operating byproducts) then it would be far more efficient than coal which has to be burned away from major cities and therefore delivered with losses.]]>Mar 27th 2008 4:33PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/03/27/socal-edison-wants-to-cover-california-rooftops-in-solar-panels/http://www.engadget.com/2008/03/27/socal-edison-wants-to-cover-california-rooftops-in-solar-panels/
McCarthy would be proud.]]>Mar 27th 2008 4:34PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/03/27/socal-edison-wants-to-cover-california-rooftops-in-solar-panels/http://www.engadget.com/2008/03/27/socal-edison-wants-to-cover-california-rooftops-in-solar-panels/
But way to piss all over anything and anyone that doesn't hump nuclear reactor glossy brochures, guys. Tell ya what, I'd rather be a "socialist" than you. Precaution and green design is for "hippies" huh guys? You're not winning any converts. I'm done...]]>Mar 27th 2008 4:40PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/03/27/socal-edison-wants-to-cover-california-rooftops-in-solar-panels/http://www.engadget.com/2008/03/27/socal-edison-wants-to-cover-california-rooftops-in-solar-panels/Mar 27th 2008 4:45PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/03/27/socal-edison-wants-to-cover-california-rooftops-in-solar-panels/http://www.engadget.com/2008/03/27/socal-edison-wants-to-cover-california-rooftops-in-solar-panels/Mar 27th 2008 4:46PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/03/27/socal-edison-wants-to-cover-california-rooftops-in-solar-panels/http://www.engadget.com/2008/03/27/socal-edison-wants-to-cover-california-rooftops-in-solar-panels/
Spent rods can be used for other purposes. Currently we use them to make tankbusters. Can't say I condone that completely, but it proves they aren't useless.]]>Mar 27th 2008 5:05PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/03/27/socal-edison-wants-to-cover-california-rooftops-in-solar-panels/http://www.engadget.com/2008/03/27/socal-edison-wants-to-cover-california-rooftops-in-solar-panels/
I'm not willing to offer up my basement for manure storage either. Does that mean we should stop farming? I'm not willing to offer it up for septic waste either, should we all stop shitting? Just because you don't want something stored right next to your living quarters doesn't mean much.]]>Mar 27th 2008 5:09PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/03/27/socal-edison-wants-to-cover-california-rooftops-in-solar-panels/http://www.engadget.com/2008/03/27/socal-edison-wants-to-cover-california-rooftops-in-solar-panels/
As for the whole global warming thing: You can't deny that it's occurring. But Earth isn't the only planet in the solar system doing it...and the data doesn't in any way support that it's being caused by CO2. It's the sun and the orbit.]]>Mar 27th 2008 6:31PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/03/27/socal-edison-wants-to-cover-california-rooftops-in-solar-panels/http://www.engadget.com/2008/03/27/socal-edison-wants-to-cover-california-rooftops-in-solar-panels/
@FordGTGuy

no I don't think it was the first, it also won't be the last glacier to fall off, the point is they said it would take 30 years for it to break off, granted its just a guess, but to fall off 15 years earlier than expected, well thats a huge difference.]]>Mar 27th 2008 6:30PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/03/27/socal-edison-wants-to-cover-california-rooftops-in-solar-panels/http://www.engadget.com/2008/03/27/socal-edison-wants-to-cover-california-rooftops-in-solar-panels/Mar 27th 2008 11:29PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/03/27/socal-edison-wants-to-cover-california-rooftops-in-solar-panels/http://www.engadget.com/2008/03/27/socal-edison-wants-to-cover-california-rooftops-in-solar-panels/Mar 27th 2008 2:44PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/03/27/socal-edison-wants-to-cover-california-rooftops-in-solar-panels/http://www.engadget.com/2008/03/27/socal-edison-wants-to-cover-california-rooftops-in-solar-panels/
1. The desert
2. Unshaded rooftops]]>Mar 27th 2008 2:56PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/03/27/socal-edison-wants-to-cover-california-rooftops-in-solar-panels/http://www.engadget.com/2008/03/27/socal-edison-wants-to-cover-california-rooftops-in-solar-panels/
I agree, the desert seems like a much smarter idea. Plenty of sun, and no people around.]]>Mar 27th 2008 2:59PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/03/27/socal-edison-wants-to-cover-california-rooftops-in-solar-panels/http://www.engadget.com/2008/03/27/socal-edison-wants-to-cover-california-rooftops-in-solar-panels/
I'm not so sure solar panels couldn't stand up to the ocean; they do just fine in space. Frankly that's my favorite idea. If they can just figure out how to harness those frickin lasers to beam all that electricity back down to Earth. ]]>Mar 27th 2008 3:31PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/03/27/socal-edison-wants-to-cover-california-rooftops-in-solar-panels/http://www.engadget.com/2008/03/27/socal-edison-wants-to-cover-california-rooftops-in-solar-panels/Mar 27th 2008 3:48PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/03/27/socal-edison-wants-to-cover-california-rooftops-in-solar-panels/http://www.engadget.com/2008/03/27/socal-edison-wants-to-cover-california-rooftops-in-solar-panels/Mar 27th 2008 4:01PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/03/27/socal-edison-wants-to-cover-california-rooftops-in-solar-panels/http://www.engadget.com/2008/03/27/socal-edison-wants-to-cover-california-rooftops-in-solar-panels/
Wind farms are put offshore for more than just the reason that it's windy, they're also there because no one wants them in their backyard. The same would be true for solar farms. I think though there's less potential for creating catastrophic weather changes. There's an awful lot of sun between the tropics out in the ocean and no one is using or owns that space. I suppose we could cut down the rain forests and move all the tribal people out of Africa and save some money on building our solar farms...]]>Mar 27th 2008 4:09PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/03/27/socal-edison-wants-to-cover-california-rooftops-in-solar-panels/http://www.engadget.com/2008/03/27/socal-edison-wants-to-cover-california-rooftops-in-solar-panels/


I'm such a douche.]]>Mar 27th 2008 4:13PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/03/27/socal-edison-wants-to-cover-california-rooftops-in-solar-panels/http://www.engadget.com/2008/03/27/socal-edison-wants-to-cover-california-rooftops-in-solar-panels/Mar 27th 2008 4:35PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/03/27/socal-edison-wants-to-cover-california-rooftops-in-solar-panels/http://www.engadget.com/2008/03/27/socal-edison-wants-to-cover-california-rooftops-in-solar-panels/
No, of course they don't have to be contiguous. and maybe that would solve the problem of powering individual residences, but it doesn't solve the problem of powering the people really using the energy, huge industrial and commercial spaces. The math is simple and obvious. Covering the roof of a two story house with solar panels is just about enough to power said house and maybe even put a little back. Take that same footprint and extend it up 80 stories and you find you're 40x too little power. Take a large scale industrial building with a larger footprint in a single story and therefore more panels but 40x the draw per square foot than a home. That's when we start talking about needing to cover a state with panels.]]>Mar 27th 2008 4:37PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/03/27/socal-edison-wants-to-cover-california-rooftops-in-solar-panels/http://www.engadget.com/2008/03/27/socal-edison-wants-to-cover-california-rooftops-in-solar-panels/
You don't happen to live hundreds of miles away from me do you, cause I was just thinking the perfect place for a nuke plant was hundreds of miles away from me too. We might have a problem... unless we're neighbors, then it's all cool. So long as no one a few hundred miles away doesn't feel the same way.]]>Mar 27th 2008 4:46PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/03/27/socal-edison-wants-to-cover-california-rooftops-in-solar-panels/http://www.engadget.com/2008/03/27/socal-edison-wants-to-cover-california-rooftops-in-solar-panels/Mar 27th 2008 4:49PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/03/27/socal-edison-wants-to-cover-california-rooftops-in-solar-panels/http://www.engadget.com/2008/03/27/socal-edison-wants-to-cover-california-rooftops-in-solar-panels/Mar 27th 2008 4:51PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/03/27/socal-edison-wants-to-cover-california-rooftops-in-solar-panels/http://www.engadget.com/2008/03/27/socal-edison-wants-to-cover-california-rooftops-in-solar-panels/
The best thing is just to line rooftops with solar panels which pump it straight into the house. I'd like to see solar DC houses become something, where instead of a bunch of AC outlets which we plug AC to DC converters into 90% of the time, we could have straight DC on most outlets and less AC outlets.

I mean, look at all of your electronics and count how many convert AC to DC. What do you have that doesn't? The vacuum, fridge... um, probably one or two other things. There's no reason lights have to be AC. I'm running all LED and fluorescent in my house anyways. Much more efficient. ]]>Mar 27th 2008 4:53PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/03/27/socal-edison-wants-to-cover-california-rooftops-in-solar-panels/http://www.engadget.com/2008/03/27/socal-edison-wants-to-cover-california-rooftops-in-solar-panels/
The average 'medium' quality solar panel is 13% efficient. The average solar insolation of Texas is about 5.5 kWh/m2-day. Texas is 696,200 square/km in size. Add 6 zeros to that number to give square meters.

So to get total daily solar insolation of Texas: take the area in square/m times 5.5 to get 3,481,000,000,000 kWh/m2. Multiply that by the current efficiency of mass produced solar panels equals out to 452,530,000,000 kWh generated daily. Or 450.5 giga-watt-hours daily (163.2 terrawatt hours annually).

According to the US Energy Information Administration, the USA consumes 3,386 gigawatthours annually.

So as you claim, you should be more specific. The true answer is this: If we covered the area of Texas with solar panels, we could generate all the electricity the nation consumes in one year, in 7 and a half days.

Or, since the world consumes 13,290 giga-watt-hours annually, an area the size of Texas would generate nearly 13 times the worlds daily consumption of electricity.

/quit spreading such disinformation. If you used simple grade-school math, you'd see that your assertions are completely false and baseless.]]>Mar 27th 2008 4:54PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/03/27/socal-edison-wants-to-cover-california-rooftops-in-solar-panels/http://www.engadget.com/2008/03/27/socal-edison-wants-to-cover-california-rooftops-in-solar-panels/
Great, thanks for doing the math for me. Now project energy consumption 20 years out into the future, factor in DC to AC conversion and transmission across the country would ya?]]>Mar 27th 2008 5:08PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/03/27/socal-edison-wants-to-cover-california-rooftops-in-solar-panels/http://www.engadget.com/2008/03/27/socal-edison-wants-to-cover-california-rooftops-in-solar-panels/
You ask, I deliver: According to the US EIA, electrical consumption in the USA in 2025 will be 5,207 giga-watt-hours annually. While I'm not familiar to large-scale DC to AC inverters, I know that my 5kw Beacon Power M5Plus interverters are 91.5% efficient.

According to the best numbers I can find, the USA has 7.2% transmission and distribution losses and the longest cost-effective distance is 4,000 miles.

So factoring in these numbers ((450x.91).93)=380:
A solar panel array the area of Texas generates 380 gig-watt-hours daily

In 2025, the USA will consume 14 giga-watt-hours daily.]]>Mar 27th 2008 5:25PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/03/27/socal-edison-wants-to-cover-california-rooftops-in-solar-panels/http://www.engadget.com/2008/03/27/socal-edison-wants-to-cover-california-rooftops-in-solar-panels/
That's not to say I don't condone solar power though. I think every house should have the option of being built with solar panels covering the roof instead of shingles. You're already paying half a mil for a medium size track house, why not tack on a measly 25-50k to greatly reduce your draw from the grid? That's the only way I see it being viable anyways.]]>Mar 27th 2008 5:29PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/03/27/socal-edison-wants-to-cover-california-rooftops-in-solar-panels/http://www.engadget.com/2008/03/27/socal-edison-wants-to-cover-california-rooftops-in-solar-panels/Mar 27th 2008 5:41PM