new technology makes solar cheaper than coal, says company

[wordspeak2]

RI's thoughts?

http://grist.org/business-technology/so ... -the-code/

[undead]

It was never about how expensive solar technology is and this probably won't stop the government and resource extraction companies from raping everything. It's still good news, though.

[brainpanhandler]

It was never about how expensive solar technology is

Well sure it was/is. $ talks.

and this probably won't stop the government and resource extraction companies from raping everything

I can't see a scenario where that's not true. Even if the spinning cone solar is everything the inventors say it is and they manage to meet their goal of capturing 3% of the energy market that still leaves a lot of need for conventional fossil fuel hydrocarbons. There's trillions of it still in the ground. Does anyone think we'll leave it there?

But stubbornly I'm keeping the following in mind anyway:

To emotionally accept impending disaster, to attain the gut-level understanding that the power elite will not respond rationally to the devastation of the ecosystem, is as difficult to accept as our own mortality. The most daunting existential struggle of our time is to ingest this awful truth—intellectually and emotionally—and continue to resist the forces that are destroying us. - Chris Hedges

[wordspeak2]

That's actually a very good quote.

Now, if Congress changed the subsidy structure and started funding solar energy projects, we could see much more than 3% of our energy needs reached. So yes and no it's about money. I think companies/projects like this are important at least because they show an example of what can be done if fucks were chosen to be given.

[undead]

If the subsidy structure was changed to convert to solar power, and military energy expenditures were eliminated, we could get 100% of our energy from solar power and keep the basic standard of living that exists for most people in the developed world. Minus the extravagant conspicuous consumption, of course, and it would be a huge re-organization, but it is completely feasible in terms of technology and physical possibility. The only reason this is not done is that there are subhuman neanderthal-oid monster creatures that own factories of chemicals, oil and coal and nuclear infrastructure, etc. and they do not want to relinquish the control this gives them over the humans living on this planet. They could probably even convert all of their shit into solar and wind power and remain in total control, but that leaves an opening for smarter people than them to get an upper hand, and doesn't allow for quite so much extravagant expenditure. And it also requires some creative brain power, of which they have none, which is why they need to keep the world's scientific establishment on such a tight leash.

I mean, consider that this new innovation is just rotating cones. When you think about it, doesn't that seem really obvious? Like something that any engineering student could have thought of. Actually something that probably countless engineers have thought of, and it was just blocked or ignored because there were no subsidies. So no matter how cheap it is, the system will not change. The market does not decide. That is a basic myth that needs to be thrown into the trash, especially in this case.

[Ben D]

... we could get 100% of our energy from solar power and keep the basic standard of living that exists for most people in the developed world.

That's an awful lot of batteries for nighttime peak hour?

..and besides,..it would never be accepted by the relevant concerned conservationists, they block hydro schemes due to loss of habitat when the dams fill up, the amount of the Earth's surface that would be obscured from sunlight by solar panel installations would be tremendous.

[undead]

^^^^^^^

Fuck you, your opinion is without merit and utterly irrelevant. The forum moderators should ban global warming denial like they did with the 9/11 "no planes" theories because they make just as much sense. And now we have to tolerate this slime creature shlurping into every discussion of environmental issues. Disgusting.

[Ben D]

^^^^^^^

Fuck you, your opinion is without merit and utterly irrelevant. The forum moderators should ban global warming denial like they did with the 9/11 "no planes" theories because they make just as much sense. And now we have to tolerate this slime creature shlurping into every discussion of environmental issues. Disgusting.

I really don't know what to say, there was no unfriendliness intended. Forum moderators are welcome to examine my post for relevancy and technological merit, and for being within the rules of the board. But I'm not so sure your response to it will pass.

[undead]

My sig line is for people like you, who help drag the planet into near term extinction of all life.

┌∩┐(◕_◕)┌∩┐

You are a fucking drag.

[Nordic]

.the amount of the Earth's surface that would be obscured from sunlight by solar panel installations would be tremendous.

What an absurd claim.

[justdrew]

.the amount of the Earth's surface that would be obscured from sunlight by solar panel installations would be tremendous.

What an absurd claim.

Ben D wrote that not undead. and yes, it is. Not the sort of thing that would be said by someone who knew anything about it.

I sometimes wonder if Ben D's account has been hijacked.

[Elihu]

If the subsidy structure was changed to convert to solar power, and military energy expenditures were eliminated, we could get 100% of our energy from solar power and keep the basic standard of living that exists for most people in the developed world. Minus the extravagant conspicuous consumption, of course, and it would be a huge re-organization, but it is completely feasible in terms of technology and physical possibility. The only reason this is not done is that there are subhuman neanderthal-oid monster creatures that own factories of chemicals, oil and coal and nuclear infrastructure, etc. and they do not want to relinquish the control this gives them over the humans living on this planet. They could probably even convert all of their shit into solar and wind power and remain in total control, but that leaves an opening for smarter people than them to get an upper hand, and doesn't allow for quite so much extravagant expenditure. And it also requires some creative brain power, of which they have none, which is why they need to keep the world's scientific establishment on such a tight leash.

I mean, consider that this new innovation is just rotating cones. When you think about it, doesn't that seem really obvious? Like something that any engineering student could have thought of. Actually something that probably countless engineers have thought of, and it was just blocked or ignored because there were no subsidies. So no matter how cheap it is, the system will not change. The market does not decide. That is a basic myth that needs to be thrown into the trash, especially in this case.

i really want to praise that post in general but i don't think for the reasons you posted it. maybe i'm wrong. i have thought for awhile now and think i have posted so, what would it look like if all roofs (in the tens of millions?) had some small (or large) number of solar panels trickle-feeding the grid? or millions of 3ft windmills? or turbines on every bridge support in moving water? 24/7/365? this could be started now. could have been started 50 years ago. why hasn't it? you're right. the market does not decide. people will over-consume subsidized or exclusive products. i hope you can see that neandertal owners of infrastructure are conjoined with the government. why is breaking that apart not a priority? cleaning up the graft will clean up the environment.

cross post quote:

ben, if AGW is wrong the cost is we've converted to modern energy infrastructure and will reserve remaining petroleum for non-burning uses. If you're wrong and we've done nothing, the future of the human race is non-existent. Doesn't really seem to balance out too well does it?

will we have converted to modern energy infrastructure? is that what we're talking about here? liberation from old modes of crony production? or global carbon tax with surveilled and rationed energy consumption via smart appliances and meters? the richer you are the more you will be able to indulge. i notice that the wind infrastructure deployed today is of the mega-joint stock public private partnership variety. this is just my opinion but asking the very characters that have exploited us to reform themselves into the future is a blunder of a most colossal magnitude. i concur with the desired ends. care, courage, knowledge and fortitude are required to get there. a raft of social legislation by an unreformed mercantile establishment is just what they want. i counsel caution and wisdom. the pathos of al gore is not a valid weather vane.

[DrEvil]

i really want to praise that post in general but i don't think for the reasons you posted it. maybe i'm wrong. i have thought for awhile now and think i have posted so, what would it look like if all roofs (in the tens of millions?) had some small (or large) number of solar panels trickle-feeding the grid? or millions of 3ft windmills? or turbines on every bridge support in moving water? 24/7/365? this could be started now. could have been started 50 years ago. why hasn't it? you're right. the market does not decide. people will over-consume subsidized or exclusive products. i hope you can see that neandertal owners of infrastructure are conjoined with the government. why is breaking that apart not a priority? cleaning up the graft will clean up the environment.

They're actually doing something like that in Germany:

http://edition.cnn.com/2011/09/21/world ... index.html

Founded by Sladek and a few friends in 1991, EWS is a citizen-owned co-operative that powers 120,000 homes across Germany, using only sustainable energy supplies.

Which is brilliant. It lets all the small guys pool their resources and compete with the big guys.

[Elvis]

http://www.solarnovus.com/index.php?opt ... Itemid=440

Case Study: Solar power cooperative
WRITTEN BY ANDREW WILLIAMS | 23 MAY 2012

UK community group Repowering South London has successfully completed the initial stage of the capital's first cooperatively owned solar power project on social housing.

As part of the scheme, known as Brixton Energy Solar 1, the group installed several hundred square metres of solar panels on the roof of Elmore House in the inner-city Loughborough Estate in Brixton. The 37.24 kWp system, which was installed by Southern Solar in March, is made up of a total of 152 x 245w ET P660 solar panels, fitted alongside two Wagner & Co inverters and a TRIC racking system, also from Wagner & Co.

According to Agamemnon Otero, Co-founder, Director & Project Manager of Brixton Energy and Repowering South London, the project was motivated by concerns around peak oil, peak gas, climate change and social injustice.

"Concerned residents came together around a common goal of decentralised co-operatively owned renewable energy for the welfare of our neighbourhood," he explains.

At this stage, communal spaces such as lifts will be powered by the array, which will offset a total of 13 tonnes of carbon annually. However, although a reduced energy rate has been negotiated with the housing association, the nature of the existing house billing and metering system means that there will not yet be a direct reduction in the price paid by residents.

Community energy efficiency fund

Following a model used successfully elsewhere in the UK, the Solar1 project has been established as a co-operative society - a not-for-profit organisation jointly owned and operated by a group of people for their mutual benefit.

"They are democratic enterprises, operating with a one member, one vote policy. This means, for instance, that the members of the Co-operative will decide collectively who will serve on the Board of Directors and how to divide and distribute the income generated from the project," explains Otero.

Funding for the initiative was raised by a community share offer, which promises to provide a return to investors of up to 3% annually. A total of 81 people, mostly from the local area, invested sums ranging from £250 to £20,000, helping to raise an impressive £58,000 in less than a month.

A key innovation is the incorporation of a Community Energy Efficiency Fund, which takes a percentage of the profit that would typically flow into an annual share payment to investors, and diverts it into a separate fund devoted to investing in energy-saving improvements in the local area

"The use of the Fund will be overseen by the directors of the Co-operative. However, initiatives will always be developed through consultation with the local community and by voting from the full co-operative members," says Otero.

These initiatives range from the promotion and installation of low-cost energy efficiency measures to local awareness raising workshops and work-experience on installations - one Loughborough Estate resident even had the opportunity to work on the installation with Southern Solar.

Community support

So far, the reaction amongst the local community has been overwhelmingly positive. Although the project team, which consists entirely of locals, have unrelated jobs and, as Otero puts it, “struggle with daily trials and tribulations,” they continue to offer their unflinching support - support that ran to 2,200 hours of time over the last year at meetings in local Brixton pubs and at the Loughborough Community Centre.

"We have a diverse range of expertise beyond the normal 'wash, clean, cook, garden and feed' type, including research, legal, project management, journalism, engineering, web development, communications, grant writing, finance, sales, behavioural change and civil administration expertise, and more!" says Otero.

He explains that Loughborough residents, “Brixtonians” and Lambeth councillors all feel the project has been a success, and he highlights the fact that further affirmation from the local community can be measured by the numerous consultations and surveys carried out by the project team, as well as the response from the 81 investors, 150 people who signed up on the project website and the 270 Twitter followers. He also points to the results of a door-to-door survey of Elmore house residents, which found that almost everyone (90%) is interested in saving energy and most (64%) think that it's a good idea for electricity generation to be owned by the community.



"The community was of the utmost importance, as they made it happen! In total, we had nine investors from the Loughborough estate, some 11% of all investors. [In addition], 85% were from Lambeth and 98% from London," he says.

"While a few of us work in the renewable sector, the volunteer team that formed over the 15 months prior is the reason why this project has been so successful. Most importantly, we can boast enthusiasm, and the courage to attempt courteous group dialogue around really hard issues of social welfare," he adds.

[Sounder]

Intuitively this device does not seem like it would be efficient because as a rotating cone, the solar cells facing the sun would be only a small percentage of total cells.

But NBD, my opinion may well be without merit and utterly irrelevant.

The forum moderators should ban global warming denial like they did with the 9/11 "no planes" theories because they make just as much sense.

Excellent, then you could have a truly dysfunctional tribe.

Kill the heyoka.

Good folk like Yarnell perkins are bound to feel left out when members express sentiments such as yours. As he wrote long ago;

If you are "left," please remember that calling for government solutions when the government is this corrupt makes you -- at the very least -- very hard for the ordinary person to understand.

If you are "right," please remember that calling for free market solutions when the market is this corrupt makes you -- at the very least -- maybe not for the the brainwashed ordinary person, but very hard for ME to understand.

And if you pray, yes, pray all along. Pray very hard.

Anyway, please consider this;

As Paul Feyerabend writes in Against Method at the end of chapter three. (Great book, the footnotes alone make reading this book worth the effort.)
Mills views and Bohr’s procedure are not only an expression of their liberal attitude; they also reflect their conviction that a pluralism of ideas and forms of life is an essential part of any rational inquiry concerning the nature of things.

Or to speak more generally: Unanimity of opinion may be fitting for a rigid church, for the frightened or greedy victims of some (ancient or modern) myth, or for the weak and willing followers of some tyrant. Variety of opinion is necessary for objective knowledge. And a method that encourages variety is also the only method that is compatible with a humanitarian outlook. (To the extent to which the consistency condition delimits variety, it contains a theological element which lies, of course, in the worship of ‘facts’ so characteristic of nearly all empiricism.)