A solar-panel glut could be a golden opportunity

IFR's are the way to go. the EBR-II in Idaho was an excellent example of a fast breeder reactor that was perfectly safe. But it will be hard to convince the hippis in charge that producing and burning plutonium from waste U-238 is a good idea.

There cannot be a glut in PV, almost by definition. As "Solar Designer said, "... prices are the same as 5 years ago." Well, at 6% annual inflation, price parity would have made the price climb by 1/3. So actually real PV prices have dropped by 25% in the past 5 years. Wait until the obamabucks start giving us jimmycarter-style inflation redux, and you'll see some real action. Stop whining about PV prices! Instead of dropping 30 large on a new kitchen or wraparound deck, put your green money where your green mouth is and start cogenerating back into the grid.

There IS an opportunity for Chip Makers to embed high efficiency "smart" grid-connect AC Inverters in each solar panel so that installations operate at 120 or 240 VAC. This would eliminate the expensive, high current DC wiring usually employed and allow direct connection to the grid for highly flexible, easily expandable installations. Any number of panels could be simply daisy-chained as capital or demand requires. A smart web-based system communicating by power line protocols would allow the owner to easily deploy a management system to track power generation and efficiencies. We need standards, in fact, to control the command and reporting protocols so that solar panels from different manufacturers can simply be "plugged into" the mix.

I see many stories about a claimed 'glut' in solar panels, but the prices are the same as 5 years ago. It looks like only the vendors get a price break. Keeping prices high will keep most people out.

All the bailouts, "stimulus" and other socialist handout programs are unconstitutional wastes of taxpayer funds. We'll be paying for this crap even if they don't raise taxes -- they'll print more money and give take their share via inflation. Limit government -- boost prosperity.

RobS, you are misinformed. Power in the US is FAR cheaper than most places in the world, and used more efficiently, you would already have an overcapacity. IMO, the US of A is the most wasteful of it's resources.

I'm going out on a limb here, but lately I'm increasingly restless with solar, especially PV solar. What triggers this for me is, Pat said: "Solar is expensive because it's still an experiment, not yet a commodity." Then Pat goes on to compare solar cells with calculators. But there is a big difference between solar cells and calculators. Already in the 70's, though they were still expensive, we KNEW HOW to build a calculator, and they were quite effective once you bought one. But it's still too early to say we know how to build a solar cell. Once you buy one, they are not very effective because they don't produce enough power to compete with the utility power that is cheaply available (never mind the cost of global warming, etc.). Even when you forget about cost, and consider only the energy used to produce solar cells, PV is just scraping by. They are probably better than the ethanol producers who perhaps consume more energy than they return in the form of ethanol (debatable). But they aren't a whole lot better. Solar seems to be such an obvious choice, when we see it all around us, and we drive (or fly) through places like Arizona where the potential hits you in the face. But still, I believe PV solar will never become a commodity until it improves, and by a considerable margin. I sincerely hope it can.

DUH, DA MEMENY IS HEET, FELLAS. COOL IT WITH THEI^2R,PLEASE. MW

DUH, DA MEMENY IS HEET, FELLAS. COOL IT WITH THEI^2R,PLEASE. MW

DUH, DA MEMENY IS HEET, FELLAS. COOL IT WITH THEI^2R,PLEASE. MW

whatever. But don't bet on hydrogen. Do you live in the midwest? notice all the clouds this year? Yep, that's staem. ex-tailpipe. Back to the drawing boards, guys.

I am sure similar arguments were heard during the electrification age. Solar, Wind, Wave, Geothermal WILL HAPPEN. They are safe, renewable and long term drivers for the economy. It's just a matter of time. Nuclear is not safe and will never be safe as long as humans are involved. All debate is pointless as none of you have the power to stop the big boys from pursuing their agenda. Good day.

How much energy is consumed producing a single solar array?

Snake Oil! Inefficient and cost prohibitive for 92% of the energy consuming public subsidies or no subsidies. Stay clear.

A lot of good comments. Please note that the reactor technology at Chernobyl was ancient, inherently flawed, and would never be used in any new plant. And although solar faces practical challenges, solar and wind offer the best hope for home energy independence. This removes much of the efficiency issue as Lessismore states, and allows us to give the finger to big energy, who's only motivation is $$$$$. Also have to remember all forms of alternative energy are in developmental stages. Pat was spot on with the calculator analogy. Can't believe the pinhead mentality that we should just give up because something isn't perfect from the start. We'd still be living in caves if that mentality ruled.

The French were 93% nuclear last I checked, and approaching the point where Muslim would not be a minority, but a majority- who are working their way up the political and military control structure. It is interesting, using the type of reactor that France uses, you put the used fuel in, and enrich it for re-use. I've heard there is an old treaty from the 1960s or early 1970's that inhibit the US use of this type of reactor, as one could also very quickly use nearly the same process to make bomb material. The massive environmental impact of making solar cells is like shooting yourself in the foot so you head doesn't hurt as bad. Also, the solar farms in California have in fact, caused localized solar heating, as these dark objects absorb much more solar energy than the light colored soils they put them over, which causes the temperature to rise in the area about 5 degrees C (~9 Fahrenheit). One has to wonder about the huge strip mines they use for mining copper, the devastation to huge areas lithium causes (most of it comes from lithium salt farms, which look like lakes you can't see the opposite side of)- widespread environmental damage, then one can go into nickel and all the other nasties that are used to produce this feel good high tech, when they are causing much more damage and global warming to produce exactly what they are trying to reduce. Meanwhile, Mother Earth is destroyed. At least some can feel good while they unknowingly destroy that which they hold dear. Go figure...

lessismore said: "It seems a peculiarly American trait...-- a single technology to "win out" over all others." That's because they are constantly pushing the us-vs-them mentality. Like politics now, it's all formatted like a football game. It doesn't matter that no one generation method is best for all situations - each one is supposed to be "the winner".

It seems a peculiarly American trait (and, I expect, one spreading rapidly to the rest of our market-colonized world) to worship technology and, along with that, to anticipate-- even expect-- a single technology to "win out" over all others in the solution of a given problem. The energy crisis we face (which can fairly be contained in the term Peak Oil) will have no single solution. Fortunately, many solutions are coming forward, much R&D is being done, and many good minds are grappling with the problems. But high technology is only one avenue. What about very low tech? I.e., conservation? The cheapest, cleanest, most abundant source of energy available is what we can save through conservation and efficiency. Some of that work (esp. efficiency) may involve tech, though not all of it "high". But if we base our projections of future energy needs on our ludicrously profligate use of energy during the Oil Age (where efficiency has been traditionally of least concern), of COURSE the prognosis is made more dire and bleak than necessary. Although changing human habits (esp. of developed-world "haves") may now seem hard, a few years on the downslope of the Peak Oil curve will make it seem easy! Solar seems inefficient, at 20% conversion rate, only until you consider the typical effective energy delivery of centralized power through the grid. The average U.S. coal-fired power plant (currently, about 50% of our grid power comes from burning coal) operates at about 34% efficiency (per EIA); couple that with transmission losses (national average was estimated at 7.2% in 1995, but I think the figure is higher in many areas at a far remove from source), and top it off with the jaw-dropping inefficiency of our end-use appliances (the incandescent light bulb is the poster child of waste at 90+% loss to heat), and a solar module on the roof, powering LED lighting inside, is sheer brilliance. 20% efficiency must be seen in relation to the big picture. And subsidy can be a good thing, if planned to boost a needed market and then taper off. The oil industry subsidy never has tapered off--- all "hidden" costs are now externalized (health & environment damage) through deep-rooted economic bias and intrinsic subsidization. THAT's not a level playing field!

RobS - "The loss of any life is tragic, but I think the answer will surprise you." How about some numbers? Loss of life, or land, or home is no big deal when it's not your life, or property or home. Nothing like Big-Picture NIMBY thinking. Hey, while you are looking up some numbers, how about the amount of taxpayer money used to prop-up nuclear plant construction, fuel processing and disposal. Makes solar subsidies seem tame in comparison.

It amazes me how many ?EXPERTS? are out there on the Solar Industry that seem to know everything that is WRONG with it at time when the industry is in its beginning stages. There will great leaders and believers that will take this industry into the future and I believe that it will be another ?telecom/.com? wave that will create a new generation of multi-millionaires.

It just drives the solarnuts crazy when you point to efficiencies that can be gained by going to Gallium Arsenide or other doping variants. But of course, that would mean big awful ARSENIC mining operations. So we can't even look that way for improvements to PV solar. Hooray for the observation that cap/trade is not required to renew our nuclear energy capacity. The salient fact on nuclear waste that we all should appreciate is ---- 0.7 ounces -----. That's the waste generated per year per household.. SURELY, we can handle that given that's also the gross amount of MERCURY you will be consuming in those mandated bulbs in your house over 1 year. And what is the 1/2 life of THAT WASTE?

When we talk about Chernobyl, remember that it was a design that we let the Russians steal because we knew it would fail. Folks don't talk about that very much. The most current nuclear power generating designs are much safer and much more efficient, so why not use some of them? Or at least investigate the total cost. The glut of solar cells being produced should do two things for us, the first being to drive down prices, which may actually increase the number of folks who would purchse them. The second, less likely outcome is that perhaps somebody would realize that some market analysts are not merely idiots, but in fact they are slobbering fool idiots. Aside from that, it does seem to me that many of those elements used in solar cells are toxic heavy metals. And while the production of these devices is controlled, who is controlling what becomes of the solar cell arrays when they are scrapped, for instance, when they are damaged by high winds, or when the building that they are installed on catches fire and burns down? Natural disasters happen, and even if htey are rare, the state of California LOVES TO PLAY "WHAT-IF", and demand all sorts of (safety?) add-ons to any worthwhile project. Silicon is not that bad, but, really, think about the other elements and chemicals in solar cells. I am still very much in favor of private enterprise developing solar-cell power generation, but lets not forget that in the long term, it also has some problems.

It amazes me about how much those in the scientific/engineering field can still be so ignorant of nuclear energy. True, if we use the same 1950s tek as current reactors, which is the only "tried and proven" tek the NRC allows for new reactors, then the problem of nuclear waste will persist. But as I keep on as a broken record sometimes, just look up the term IFR, Integral Fast Reactor. IFRs are capable of burning nuclear ash as fuel, not just wringing every possible joule out of newly processed fuel, but can even be used to burn what's now considered "nuclear waste", and reduce and even eventually eliminate what's buried in the salt caverns out west, without having to mine any more uranium, ever. IFRs use fast neutrons, not slow (thermal) neutrons, so are capable of utilising a much higher percentage of the fuel they're given. They're integral, so they don't require external reprocessing, thereby reducing if not eliminating the possibility of diverting Pu for illicit means as is possible with conventional breeder reactors. CANDU reactors were a step in the right direction, but IFRs can be considered *THE* solution to our (clean) energy needs, again, even being able to use as fuel what's now considered waste and simply buried. That waste can be "unburied" and used in nearby IFRs to supply electricity. Eliminate the need for further U mining/processing for new fuel, use current "waste" as fuel, reduce the "danger" of existing nuclear-waste-dumps, make greenies feel good about getting rid of said waste... it's about as perfect a solution as possible! Yet no one seems to even know about IFRs.

many great comments, keep it up engineers. especially arclight. last time i was in france i visited a powerplant operated by electricite de france, got one of their brochures. nuclear == 92% hydro 4%. their standard for reprocessing, done on the northwest coast is not perfect, and they're satisfied to let dilution be the solution for some transuranic wastes. lets hope they adopt superior tech as it inevitably becomes available. the french also do solar and wind, so even for them these are potential options.

The long term reliability of Solar will ultimately determine its cost and viability. The sooner we get going and install a lot of Solar, in different environments, the sooner we will be able to produce a reliable long term economical Solar product. We desperately need to be able to justify Solar on a ROI basis. The geothermal heat/ac industry is facing the same issue today. The high cost and long time to pay back are retarding conversion to these renewable technologies.

A Solar Panel Glut is exactly what the market needs. Providing a government bailout in response to falling market prices is stupid. Providing government subsidies for consumers of solar panels is just plain stupid. The FED has to collect FIVE dollars of tax to pay out ONE dollar in subsidy. Subsidizing 'anything' drives the price UP by the amount of the subsidy, and inhibits real market growth. If there is a glut then the market price will fall, making the panels more attractive for purchase.

Seems I've stirred up quite a hornet's nest bringing up nuclear power. Good. Amidst the typical fear-mongering sophistry were some excellent comments about the cost of nuclear electricity, France's success for many decades, and viable approaches for storing spent fuel. Thanks to ALL for the good dialogue. I'd like to ask those who brought up Chernobyl to answer one simply question: How many people died in that disaster? The loss of any life is tragic, but I think the answer will surprise you. And for those who love interesting engineering stories, I highly recommend reading some of the accounts of the accident and cleanup. You'll learn a lot about nuclear power and the real risks of radiation. It's fascinating.

Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't Ford sign an executive order banning us from reprocessing our nuclear fuel? I've also heard that if we could reprocess our nuclear waste we would be able to get back close to 99% of the original uranium and in so doing we wouldn't have to mine uranium for close to 300 years. Given that, isn't nuclear power a no-brainer? At the very least we could use nukes until we improve the efficiency of solar panels to the point where they are competitive. I wonder how much of a problem nuclear waste is for France since they actually reprocess their nuclear waste. I'm sure they have some to deal with but I doubt it is as much of a problem for them.

Having my dad do direct cleanup of the Chernobyl power plant, I do not oppose nuclear power. The reason is simple, if controlled properly it is safe. Now the waste is another problem that needs to be solved by the humans. (Trust me! I know what I'm talking about... This doesn't get anymore personal.) Every form of energy has its positives and negatives. Even the hydrogen power needs a lot of $$$ for an infrastructure. It is something that humans need to lay out and make a choice. So in the basic form the choice for energy is essentially a CHOICE! And the people need to make that choice. The only other alternate choice is for the humans to go back to the agrarian roots and be self sufficient, manual labor farmers! You know rise with the sun go to sleep with the sun! (but wait i thought we wanted to get away from that, yet many of us rise with the sun and go to sleep with the sun in the tech world anyway) A comment on the solar cells; I think the latest effiency breakthrough was about 24% or so. This wont get to the mainstream/mass market until about 2011. Sun harvesting is a complicated process and the advancements made on it will be slow, with possible big breakthroughs... Maybe if more people work on it, they can change that. But there is a immediate need for power. A comment on the electronics clean rooms; yes, the production floors are clean. But what happens to all of the waste produced during the mfg process?

With an increasing global population and demand for consumer goods such as air cons and other energy consuming devices the raise in energy consumption will not diminish but increase. We need today to challenge the manufacturing cost of PV by introducing and pushing for competitiveness through standardization like other Industries such as the Semiconductor Industry. It will drive the price per panel down and in parallel our governments also has to flex its muscles (if they have any) and act in a commercial positive way to the energy source which will truly outlive us all, the Sun. My question is how your grand children?s children will find enough energy from oil, coal or gas since these energy resources are limited.Unlike the sun that will shine on us for another 6 Billion years. I been personal effected by proximity to the Chernobyl accident so I am concerned of nuclear usage and it's long term waste storage solution.

1. Rather than whine about nuclear waste, why aren't we figuring out ways to extract the residual energy in the waste at an accelerated rate? Also, thorium has a much shorter half-life (200 years per one recent article in the Wash Post). Why not use thorium? The answer in the article was that "...we had more experience with uranium..." back in the 1940s. Well, why not do some looking rather than whining? 2. There's nothing stopping us from using multiple small, prepackaged nuke plants as opposed to the monsters we build today. That's what the Navy has done for years. They also go in big for standardization, which would reduce both the cost of construction and the cost of training. Again, there's plenty of possibilities there, but folks have to once again learn to put their emotions on the shelf and use their reasoning ability. 3. There is no free lunch, as has been pointed out. The comments that manufacturing is highly regulated to be non-polluting is not necessarily true globally. This is another case where those of us who are affluent (which basically includes all the commenters here, I suspect) are perfectly happy to let peons in other countries live with pollution, or other life-ending things, so long as we can access the parts and materials we want. We do it already with regard to DDT...folks in Africa have been asking for years to be allowed to use DDT to kill mosquitos that deliver malaria, and we are so concerned about "the planet" that we continue to refuse. We'll let them continue to die of malaria first. Whale of a free lunch for us... 3. Distributed power systems are a nice idea that is probably unworkable. Remember that the folks that comment here are NOT representative of the general population. We wouldn't have to have a National Electrical Code if the general public knew something about how to handle electricity. They barely know enough to keep from getting themselves killed. How many of them will be able to manage a solar electrical plant? Answer: Hardly any of them. Who's going to manage those plants? Answer: Someone who's going to be just as motivated by profits, and just as susceptible to corruption, as the current large electricity suppliers. Why? Because they and we are all human beings with the same type of nature...corrupt. 5. We need to ruthlessly evaluate EVERY energy source according to its total cost (including all the initial and sustaining costs), total delivery, total risks (with probability distribution around those risks), and potential schedule for mass production. To simply say that "solar is good/bad" or "coal is good/bad" or "nuclear is good/bad" or other similar things with no ruthless analysis only shows that we are still far too bound up in our emotions, and are unwilling to really discipline ourselves to do a rigorous engineering evaluation. The first head of the Sierra Club was quoted in 2006 as saying something like, "Well, we didn't support nuclear power in 1971 because we equated nuclear power with nuclear weapons...". How's THAT for a "scientific" outlook? Is that going to be the level of our evaluation? Are we really that poor at doing basic science and engineering? Or are we simply refusing to continue to grow up as we grow older?

Why do I have to pay for your solar panels? Because they cost too much. Why not get the prices down so they don't need a subsidy? So they generate capital rather than consume it? As usual the free lunch at other's expense is out in force. Let the peons starve is their motto.

Nuclear power - electricity too cheap to meter. Even if it didn't use huge amounts of fossil fuel to mine, process, package and then dispose of all of the fissionable material (and that doesn't count the building and maintenance of the plant itself), there will always be the other factors - greed, incompetence and corruption. With solar, those factors mean that people might have to have their PV systems worked on. With nuclear, you have, oh let's say Chernobyl... 155000 sq km contaminated (that's an area the size of Italy). 5,000,000 people living in contaminated areas. 404,000 people permanently relocated. Estimated direct economic costs to date in the hundreds of billions of dollars. The EU is still trying to put together a multinational fund to enclose the power plant before the radiation embrittled concrete gives out and walls start to collapse - which will release large plumes of high level radioactive dust into the atmosphere. When I hear comments about nuclear power that use the words "impossible" and "can never happen", I know I'm dealing with people with short memories and not enough experience. PS- Technology aside. The more centralized your power generation, the easier it is to be manipulated for other peoples' financial gain. Sound familiar??

Solar Bowler, you produce quite a lot of hype yourself. You paint the whole electronic industry as "dirty and energy-intensive process". Have you heard of what's called a "Clean Room"? This industry has developed what CLEAN really IS. You make a false and unsubstantiated claim, "All these processes produce air pollution and heavy metal emissions (arsinic, phosphine, hydride & metal-organic gases etc), and they consume energy - which brings about more air pollution, heavy metal emissions and also greenhouse gases." This industry is one of the most regulated and unpolluting industries in the world. While they could produce pollution, they have monitors and controls to prevent that. You'll likely have more arsinic polution from a store that sells rat poison than a plant producing Gallium Arsenide. Sure, the Sun directly produces Global Warming - the only source... unless we have a nuclear melt down.

I'm all for solar power when it is practical but why the unreasonable bias by some against nuclear energy? It is not as if nuclear fuel didn't come from the earth in the first place, so the whole 'poisoning the environment' complaint regarding storing spent nuclear fuel is fundamentally baseless and misleading. Also, I am always astounded by the blatant ignorance of the anti-nuclear crowd who seem not to be aware that France generates 80% of its electricity from nuclear power plants and has enough left over to send power to England, yet France, unlike the USA, is not blessed with many hundreds of thousands of square miles of open real estate (of marginal utility) and has a much higher population density than the USA but still manages to safely operate several dozen nuclear power plants and dispose of all the resulting spent nuclear fuel on its own territory without problems. I would ask the anti-nuclear crowd to learn in detail how France is successfully managing its nuclear power program and then come back with some serious energy proposals rather than continuing to inflict their spectacularly uninformed and thoughtless energy prejudices on the rest of us whom they are doing a criminal disservice to with their present blinkered lack of understanding and obstructionism.

Could distributed solar power change the price of daytime comsupmtion? Daytime charge for ac cooling to commerce could fund a thousand 1-2 kw home installs. The lower price per panel could have grids refocus the delivery system. I am not going to pay for this.PERIOD. The system will not give me low demand prices so I will not give power to the grid. I instead will just reduce my delivery charge by reduceing my demand. If they try to raise the delivery charge I will say this " i was out of power for 7 days last year. I tossed 1k worth of food and money on replacement power due to bad grid maintenance.

There are a number of fairly efficient ways to make methane and methanol out of solar power (or other RE). These approaches make it possible to 'store' wind and solar energy. Keyword search 'electrolysis methanol potassium hydroxide potassium carbonate'. Assuming the US consumes 1 trillion watts on a hot summer day, and assuming 20% conversion efficiency for PV cells, one gets 200 watts per square meter, 200 megawatts per square kilometer, and therefore 5000 square kilometers of surface area covered to meet peak demand. This has to be quadrupled (from 5 hours at peak equivalent, to 20 hours of peak equivalent) to get consumption over 24 hours, or 20,000 square kilometers. 150 kilometers squared is 22,500 square kilometers. Multiplying 150 x .6 yields a square 90 miles on a side. While this is a lot of semiconductor fabrication, it certainly is a pinprick out of 4,500,000 square miles of the continental US. It is certainly less area than is currently covered by roofs, much less parking lots. Having the government incur more debt to 'stimulate' this business is silly. A better approach is to combine this 'surplus' with more sophisticated ways of employing it, creating a higher value proposition. The market will then take care of itself. Government money will inhibit the creative solutions presented by this circumstance.

I would be happy to offset some of the $400 a month I spend on cooling in the summer, as it is needed during the day I wouldn't even have to worry about storage.

Solar is expensive because it's still an experiment, not yet a commodity. When I was in college in the early `70s calculators were expensive. I had to shell out $150 for a no-name scientific LED calculator which had about a 3 hour battery life. Later I went to work at TI designing calculator chips and by the time I left in `84 our TI-35 was selling for less than $20, with LCD display and 3 year battery life. The same story could be told of hundreds of new technologies which we've come to accept as standard commodities, like laptops, cell phones, PDAs, iPods, HDTVs, etc. Solar power has been a novelty for the most part, but we haven't had a push to make it highly marketable. There is a need to have electric cars and electric transits, but connecting them to the grid is costly and/or ugly. Traffic is heaviest in the daytime, so solar power would provide a needed boost at that critical time, but obviously could not provide a sole source of power. Likewise, most air conditioning is needed during daytime, when solar power would provide a needed boost. The problem is that it's not a total nor exclusive solution, so it hasn't forced itself into play. However, it is the most practical and long-term solution, and only needs to be driven to be a commodity by our savvy manufacturing capability, to become cost effective. Because of the scale and global scope, there is a need for the federal government to apply some of the "stimulus" of which they are itching to dispose. The only problem is the question of how they legislate that without messing up the industry with counter-productive regulations and spending on pork barrel bureaucracies.

I think it is extremely unfair of Solar Bowler to mention China as "unregulated" countries. While slower than the West to enact and implement regulations,China is moving forward rapidly in that area. India, on the other hand, as usual, is indulging in futile debates with out any action except being critical of other nations particularly USA, their wont for the last 60 years.

I enjoy reading these hype articles about so-called "green" technologies, one of which is solar photovoltaics! Solar panels don?t come falling out of the sky ? they have to be manufactured. Similar to computer chips, this is a dirty and energy-intensive process. First, raw materials have to be mined: quartz/sand for silicon cells, metal ore for thin film cells. Next, these materials have to be treated, following different steps (in the case of silicon cells these are purification, crystallization and wafering). Finally, these upgraded materials have to be manufactured into solar cells, and assembled into modules. All these processes produce air pollution and heavy metal emissions (arsinic, phosphine, hydride & metal-organic gases etc), and they consume energy - which brings about more air pollution, heavy metal emissions and also greenhouse gases. The manufacture of these toxic devices are best left for unregulated third-world countries such as China or India, who have zero environmental regulations. Having limited environmental regulations in China and India makes it a LOT cheaper to produce vs U.S. in regards to capturing the hazardous waste resulting from solar cell manufacturing! And how would that help American manufacturing? I've often wondered - if the sun is powerful enough to provide us with "unlimited" solar energy to provide our electrical needs (as predicted by the solar industry & gov't officials) couldn't the sun be powerful enough to cause global warming??? And don't forget the drive from our own politicians (21st century Luddites?) who want to LIMIT solar applications - do a google search on "Feinstein blocks solar power" to learn more!

"Modest positive cash flow." Exactly this type of thinking caused the housing bubble. See where we are right now... But hey, let's waste a few billions more - let's stick it to the Asians who know no better than to lend us money.

Take it out of the ground, Burn it in a reactor, Put it all back into the ground, Where it came from in the first place. With a high temp reactor you can also efficiently generate hydrogen from water. You either burn it (coal, oil, gas) and generate smog and CO2 or you go nuclear. The 'waste' is either disipated in the air or kept concentrated, so you can easily get rid of it, put it back inside a mountain for example- the science is already there and makes sense. Terrorism is a concern with nuclear, but is it any less a concern by sending billions to the middle east for oil? Water power, wind power, solar ALONE and you'll freeze in the dark. The numbers just don't work. ....do the math

Solar energy does not produce the toxic waste side-effect that now pollutes our air and water. It is clean, but its not cheap. The Obama administration needs to create a long term energy plan for this country that phases out coal, reduces our dependance on oil, and replaces it with wind, water, solar and nuclear power.

Well I just dont get the Nuclear Power grab...Thats another mismanagement of monies...You and I both know nuclear polution will outlast plastic,(I can recycle plastic), and once the fuel is spent its usless waste, and guess what its kind of exlcusive where it is life can not exist...please put the money in truely renewalbe resources, like solar and wind and waves and geothermal, but god forbid not in a nuclear wasteland...So Rob why dont you setup your bedroom next to a pile of nuclear waste, I here kids love playing in it. (did I hear the sound of lemmings running off the cliff)

Solar presently contributes 1/5 of 1% of the nation's energy needs. Why is that? Because it is expensive and it is very inefficient. And that is true even with the 30% rebates from the Federal government.

An affordable solution to the electric caps that soon expire. Getting on the band wagon with solar energy is only possible if there is indeed a "cash for power" bill. (See "Cash for Clunkers") Turn in your old less efficient appliances and heating sources for new ones at a discount. Paired with a discount on solar panels would turn consumer spending in the right direction. Not to mention the energy savings at the front end of most budgets. Maybe just pipe dreams,.. time will tell.

If the Obama Administration were serious about using 'stimulus dollars' for investment purposes, they'd begin a 10 year campaign to double the country's nuclear power generating capacity. More than rebuilt bridges, inefficient solar infrastructure, and social handouts, the investment would assure 2 generations of clean, cheap power to rebuild the country's industry upon. For now, solar only makes sense in a highly-distorted energy market (read: cap and trade). And while such distortions can be enforced locally, they'll leave the U.S. further exposed to overseas competition - where energy IS cheap (and clean).