[Mika]

not conventional solar panels. and no i dont mean just my house. nano solar film. its see through, and its the pigments that are in it that do the energy converting. you can apply it to just about any surface. Including industrial buildings, office builds, cars, and other things if youd like. you cant see it, its a lot more durable and when it hits mass market will be much cheaper than conventional panels.

I dont proclaim it as a panacea. It could take a big chunk out of the energy we use.

If you can see through a solar panel, it is not an effective solar panel. Thereby due to reduced amount of power, you need more of them. The other thing to consider is the amount of plastic waste and plastic degradation in the UV light; these panels likely wouldn't last long.

[Beskargam]

nevermind. I just looked it up and feel stupid. i took what my teacher said for fact. its not see through.  http://www.nanosolar.com/nanosolar-technology-overview
 can i redact the tard like feeling?

[Mika]

nevermind. I just looked it up and feel stupid. i took what my teacher said for fact. its not see through.  http://www.nanosolar.com/nanosolar-technology-overview
 can i redact the tard like feeling?

Don't worry. In time you'll find out that quite a lot of stuff your teachers said back in the school (primary school) changed, or was wrong one way or the other. Checking what teacher says is one way of learning, and then it depends on the teacher how he sees the "troublesome" student.

[Beskargam]

ah mk. ill keep that in mind. still does not seem like a bad idea though. so scratch that on surfaces you need to see through. but you could still put it on buildings.

[Delta_V]

There are a number of problem with GM foods. A big one is a generation of plant that self terminates. If everyone uses seeds terminator seeds, then the assurance of having food goes down. For instance society collapses or some traumatic event occurs and the companies responsible for distributing the seed is unable to do so, there'd be a lot of farmers unable to really grow a crop (or even just a big enough crop) Heirloom seeds can only get you so far in one growing cycle...

Another big one is rights to use a particular seed. A company inserts a little gene into a barley, then it takes out a patent on the seed. Suddenly no one can use this seed without paying royalties. Even an organic farmer in a neighboring field who had some of his crop pollinated with pollen from a GM crop could get sued for copyright infringement. It's as bad as the drug companies.

I'm aware of these problems with GM food. They belong under the regulation part in my opinion - and especially the first one (while reasonable from the point of view of the company) doesn't make sense, and I'd expect that those seeds would not see a lot of buyers.

The problem is, the regulation of a lot of the agriculture industry, at least in the US, is fubar.  I lived on a farm growing up, so I have at least a little first-hand knowledge on the subject.  The companies that produce seed, fertilizers, pesticides, etc. can get away with an awful lot.  I rember one year where there was a really good corn harvest, and all of a sudden, the price of fertilizer and seed just doubled.  Not because of any increase in demand or decrease in supply or increased costs, but because they decided that since the farmers made more money that year than usual, they could afford to pay more for everything.

As for those types of seeds not seeing many buyers, the problem is most seed is that way.  Most crops, you can't plant seeds and then take some from the harvest and plant those.  The companies that produce the best seeds make sure that you have to come back to them year after year to buy more.  Farmers don't have much say in the matter, since there are so few companies to choose from, and its hard to choose a type that does not use terminator seeds when the ones that use terminator seeds give 50% better yields or more.

Overall, I don't think GMOs are really that big of a deal, and if we're going to feed a growing population, I think we're not going to have a choice but to use genetically modified crops.  Even without a growing world population, if the standard of living of much of the rest of the world rises to that of developed nations, GMOs will probably become a necessity.

[Droid803]

**** it let's just all live on comets.

[Kosh]

http://www.monbiot.com/2011/05/05/our-crushing-dilemmas/

Our Crushing Dilemmas
May 5, 2011

How do environmentalists fight without losing what we’re fighting for?

By George Monbiot, published on the Guardian’s website, 5th May 2011

In my column earlier this week, I discussed the crisis the environment movement is now confronting. I’m using this essay to expand on the problems I mentioned there, and in particular to consider the most interesting of the responses to the crisis proposed so far, by Paul Kingsnorth. Let me begin by spelling out, at greater length, the dilemmas we face.

Guardian readers may have read the short version already.

The article sums up nicely what is truely wrong with the environmental movement: It's a combination of fear (of nukes) and wishful thinking (about renewables).


EDIT: I'll also throw this in, written in 2008 but still very relevent.

Despite U.K. wind industry subsidies of over $500 million, so far such a massive investment has only provided less than 0.5 percent of the U.K.'s electricity needs. In August 2007, the BBC's Radio 4 “Costing the Earth” program reported that the government’s financial incentives were encouraging wind industry firms to take advantage of massive government subsidies and build wind farms on non-viable sites across the mainland. So it seems winds are too variable even in Europe’s windiest country, with most turbines consistently underperforming as a result. (For more on the “Costing the Earth” report, see “U.K. Wind Blown Off Course,” ET, October 2007.) Jim Oswald, a consulting engineer, analyzed figures submitted to Ofgem (the U.K.’s electricity watchdog) on each wind farm's load factor. He explained to the BBC, "It's the power swings that worry us. Over a 20-hour period you can go from almost 100 percent wind output to 20 percent."

[Grizzly]

Sadly from what i've seen, most environmentalist groups seem more focussed on saving polar bears (A honorful thing to want to do, as well) than discuss and protest GMO food and crops, push for cheap non-fossil fuel solutions, push to subsidize solar panels or protest nuclear power plants and chemical toxic spilling in rivers and oceans. I'd really like this movement to get priorities straight and try to educate themselves more, so their time will be more spent to more important things, -and- at the same time saving a whole lot of endangered species, including our own species.

Just my two cents.

EDIT: Also, I'm sure i'm wrong but, on a planet like Earth, how can we even achieve low-carbon emissions? Is it a fool's errand in the first place? (We, and many other animals, are carbon-based lifeforms, we exhale CO2 which plants need to make oxygen, or so i was taught at school - high carbon emissions actually cause plants and trees to grow much faster). I'm more interested in seeing low-chemical and radiological emissions.

When biologists talk about saving the Tiger, they actually mean saving not only the tiger, but also everything that lives in his territorioum, all those differnet plants and animals, bacteria, insects, etc. etc. etc.

Its the same with the polar bear. When Enviromentalists talk about saving the Polar Bear, they actually mean to achieve everything that needs to be done in order to save hte polar bear, which is basically stopping climate change.
However, stopping climate change is a concept few people can fully grasp. Saving the Polar Bear is much simpler, and much more likely to raise money.

[General Battuta]

Sadly from what i've seen, most environmentalist groups seem more focussed on saving polar bears (A honorful thing to want to do, as well) than discuss and protest GMO food and crops, push for cheap non-fossil fuel solutions, push to subsidize solar panels or protest nuclear power plants and chemical toxic spilling in rivers and oceans. I'd really like this movement to get priorities straight and try to educate themselves more, so their time will be more spent to more important things, -and- at the same time saving a whole lot of endangered species, including our own species.

Just my two cents.

EDIT: Also, I'm sure i'm wrong but, on a planet like Earth, how can we even achieve low-carbon emissions? Is it a fool's errand in the first place? (We, and many other animals, are carbon-based lifeforms, we exhale CO2 which plants need to make oxygen, or so i was taught at school - high carbon emissions actually cause plants and trees to grow much faster). I'm more interested in seeing low-chemical and radiological emissions.

When biologists talk about saving the Tiger, they actually mean saving not only the tiger, but also everything that lives in his territorioum, all those differnet plants and animals, bacteria, insects, etc. etc. etc.

Its the same with the polar bear. When Enviromentalists talk about saving the Polar Bear, they actually mean to achieve everything that needs to be done in order to save hte polar bear, which is basically stopping climate change.
However, stopping climate change is a concept few people can fully grasp. Saving the Polar Bear is much simpler, and much more likely to raise money.

Charismatic megafauna!

[MP-Ryan]

Charismatic megafauna!

Yup.  Unimportant in large scope, but necessary to promote causes.  Nobody rallies around a call to save species traditionally thought of as "pests."  The panda is the best example of this type of conservationism in action.  The loss of insects (bees, particularly) is way more important ecologically-speaking, but they don't get anywhere near the donations.

[Bobboau]

and thus you have the genesis of intentional, institutionalized, and systematic dishonesty and manipulation from the environmental movement, for the greater good.

[Astronomiya]

not conventional solar panels. and no i dont mean just my house. nano solar film. its see through, and its the pigments that are in it that do the energy converting. you can apply it to just about any surface. Including industrial buildings, office builds, cars, and other things if youd like. you cant see it, its a lot more durable and when it hits mass market will be much cheaper than conventional panels.

I dont proclaim it as a panacea. It could take a big chunk out of the energy we use.

as for nuclear, anybody know how far we are away from pop fusion?

How easy is this film to manufacture, how cheaply can it be made, and what materials are necessary to build it?  Are they rare?  If so, how much of them is required?  Etc.  The problem with many solar panel technologies (likely including this stuff) is that not only are the usually not that efficient, they require very rare and expensive metals such as gallium or indium to work.  This drives the cost up irrespective of how cheap the rest of it is.  Besides which, all solar tech has a hard limit of ~1 kW/m² of power generation, simply because that's the solar irradiance on Earth.  Also note that isn't constant; it's usually much less than that even during the day, and there's nighttime, etc.  A nuclear plant may take up about 100 acres, and generate several gigawatts of power.  A solar station, assuming 100% efficiency and 500 acres of generating area, will generate a maximum of 2 GW.  So a nuclear plant, purely from a space standpoint, takes up one-fifth the space of the solar plant's generating area, assuming magical panels.  With a realistic efficiency of 20-30%, the reactor's advantage jumps to 15-20 times.  Plus it's able to pump out that power day and night.

This is not to say that nuclear power is the One True Path, etc.  If you don't need that power continuously, it's not the best choice, because reactors don't necessarily run very well at 50% capacity or whatever, and they can't necessarily change their power output quickly.  It is, however, the best option to be the backbone of the power grid, with support from renewables and hydro, including solar.  Solar is great for powering homes when supplemented by the grid/batteries for nighttime operation, but homes are not very power intensive (a few kilowatts at most, even during peak hours).

As for fusion, it will come when it does, if it does.  I would say we are still a half-century away from practical fusion power at best.

[Luis Dias]

The green movement got so many things so awefully wrong the past 50 years that I can't just listen to them anymore.

Which is a shame. I think that we do need a good environmental movement. But this is not environmentalism. This is caveman ideology, a "let's return to be harmonious with nature" new age shenanigan, an anti-humanist movement, where any action by humans that isn't self-restrain should be condemned and chastised as sinful against the goddess of Gaia. A religion, where your christian cracker is substituted by "organic food", where reductionist practices of science are condemned and substituted by "holistic thinking", where paranoia substitutes reason and evidence for argumentation.

No, acid rain did not destroy the forests in the passing of the millenia, as predicted;
No, peak oil didn't "cull" 60 million americans in the year 2000, after it alledgely happened in the eighties (rofl);
No, DDT wasn't poisonous to humans (albeit restraining DDT is now considered good for evolutionary reasons);
No, Nuclear Energy isn't deadly at all, it is in fact the less deadly energy solution we've ever had;
No, MG crops aren't the disease the greens proclaimed them to be (albeit I'm terrified by the related problem called "copyright");

I could go on all night. Their track record is so bad, one could indeed use them as an inversal proxy for truth. Every time I see them in TV saying that "X is dangerous", then I know it is not. If they say that "Y is the solution" then I know it's a ****ty solution. They are that incompetent, always parasiting for attention and publicity in the middle of disasters.

[Flipside]

There's media-spin involved in there as well though, often in order to represent 'green views' media tend to turn to either political figures who twist facts to suit their own agenda, people who secretly wish they were a Navi, or idiots who think that smashing up a research laboratory is doing humanity a favour in some way.

[Bobboau]

/*brofists Luis Dias*/

[Luis Dias]

Solar will be huge.

In 15-20 years. NOT BEFORE. So whenever I see some douchebag telling me on TV that solar isn't ubiquituous just because the "government" doesn't invest in it, I'm just able to see the usual crackpots lining up for the lobby money grabbing.

Why do I say 15-20 years? Mostly due to this chart: http://solarbuzz.com/facts-and-figures/retail-price-environment/module-prices

That price must go south of 20-50 cents to become profitable against other power sources.

[MP-Ryan]

Solar will be huge.

The question is, should it be?  Solar is financially and environmentally expensive - it uses large quantities of heavy metals (which are damned difficult to recycle), and it just isn't practical for a large portion of the Earth's surface under the panel paradigm due to daylight times, storage capacity, land base requirements, and maintenance costs.

If/when someone perfects a practical use of biosolar power generation (using either microbes or simple organelles on plate backings) then maybe solar will become a useful.  Until then, nuclear is a much more practical alternative for the future.  Solar is a utopian pipe dream at present.

[Bobboau]

I foresee GM fuels.

[Luis Dias]

Solar will be huge.

The question is, should it be?  Solar is financially and environmentally expensive

Did you even read my post in its entirety rather than just picking that sentence out? Because I have the feeling that you didn't.

... - it uses large quantities of heavy metals (which are damned difficult to recycle), and it just isn't practical for a large portion of the Earth's surface under the panel paradigm due to daylight times, storage capacity, land base requirements, and maintenance costs.

These heavy metals are already in major production for many other reasons. I don't mind them being used for a giant engineering rig, if that rig is economically viable.

If/when someone perfects a practical use of biosolar power generation (using either microbes or simple organelles on plate backings) then maybe solar will become a useful.  Until then, nuclear is a much more practical alternative for the future.  Solar is a utopian pipe dream at present.

Biosolar is a pipe dream. "Usual" solar will come much sooner. Nuclear is awesome and I approve it, as long as they don't place nuclear plants near fault lines (I think we can say we should learn that lesson by now), but nuclear is also a giant investment upstart with almost ten years from the starting of the project until you see any electricity coming out of them. It has major benefits wrt solar too.

Still, solar will be the future. It's my belief.

[SpardaSon21]

Solar works great for small applications except when it gets dark or cloudy.  It is normally dark half the year, and it often gets cloudy the rest of the time.  Also, solar doesn't have enough energy density to power large-scale industrial applications.  In addition, the heavy metals used in solar panel construction are rare and toxic.  I don't see solar becoming the next big energy source that replaces oil.  Nuclear electricity, fission and hopefully fusion in the future, yes.  Not the intermittent and space-hungry wind and solar.