OK. I take your meaning about proof of concept for the 3D glass printer thing, but for this particular one, at no time will consumers at large accept paper products with burn marks around the edges. They'll have to be cut off, and then it would make more sense just to cut it with a blade in the first place. Now, that blade could be sun-powered, but that's a different concept.>> ^MaxWilder:

>> ^messenger:
Calling this eco is like calling a Rube Goldberg machine efficient. Just because it uses solar panels doesn't mean it's environmentally friendly.
All that plastic and metal, on top of that driving out to the desert and back, not to mention all the materials consumed in designing it, to do with solar power in a few hours what you can do better in a couple minutes at home with a pair of scissors and a hole-punch.

Wow, you are so missing the point. This guy is doing proof of concepts. Of course it would take resources to set up, but once it is, you could use nothing but solar energy to do what factories are burning fossil fuels to do. Indefinitely.
Of course his machines are very crude, but his goal is to get people thinking about utilizing free and abundant resources of the desert. Others can refine the ideas however they might want to apply it.

>> ^messenger:

Calling this eco is like calling a Rube Goldberg machine efficient. Just because it uses solar panels doesn't mean it's environmentally friendly.
All that plastic and metal, on top of that driving out to the desert and back, not to mention all the materials consumed in designing it, to do with solar power in a few hours what you can do better in a couple minutes at home with a pair of scissors and a hole-punch.


Wow, you are so missing the point. This guy is doing proof of concepts. Of course it would take resources to set up, but once it is, you could use nothing but solar energy to do what factories are burning fossil fuels to do. Indefinitely.

Of course his machines are very crude, but his goal is to get people thinking about utilizing free and abundant resources of the desert. Others can refine the ideas however they might want to apply it.

first??? Yves Massarde has a big time solar setup in the Saharan desert collecting solar energy, but he is using it to dispose of nuclear waste.

I've heard numbers thrown around that seem to contradict some said here. Stuff like there isn't enough space to meet the worlds energy needs without building over already crucial farm land etc.

Still, fossil fuels are just stored solar energy. Once those resources finally run out then it seems clear to me that any future must go right to the source. That or fusion, but I don't see the latter being practical for a long while yet.

Either way, that solar tower is without a doubt the most beautiful power stations I've ever seen. May the future be bright hurrhurr.

Solar cells have reached 40% effectiveness, which is far more than any conventional energy source. The tech has come leaps and bounds from what you refer to. Nuclear isn't the answer either as peak uranium is about as close away as peak oil. The fact is, free photos rain down with a total solar energy hitting Earth at around 10^17 Watts, and that is just on the earths surface. Tapping into just a portion of that is worth it. Extra planetary collectors would fetch nearly double of their earth bound brethren. Solar makes to much since to ignore. In other videos, he talks about the cost, and it was about as costly as a second of equivalently maintained asphalt, and that doesn't even factor in the energy they provide as an offset.

The ball has to start rolling. As others pointed out, replacing all sidewalks with something like this would be a great start. Smart sidewalks have whole other neat set of applications! Hey Mr. Smart phone, why don't you sync up with the side walk and point me in the direction of that bar I am going to...I shall follow the sidewalk arrows until I arrive!

If you are talking about technological costs, the always goes down fast with time. Problem is there are about 20 different sets of competing technologies that are still viaing for dominance. We are only about 10 years away from paper printing, high yield cells. With a modular system like the one proposed, outdated units could be phased out for newer ones very easily. In the end, it takes a doer to get this done, it is easy to be a naysayer and poke holes in the boat. I mean, the internet, surely that would never work. Hurdles can usually be overcome, doing nothing can't be.

Not only does it have to follow contours of the land, but these panels would have to be able to deal with subsidence of the layers of earth under the foundation due to constant rolling point loads from trucks (since cars weigh nothing compared to a fully loaded truck). Asphalt/bitumen can elastically deform and still be a via road surface (i'm sure everyone's noticed 'channels' in the road). Couple that with the need to remove surface run-off water when it rains. True you could make the top road surface bumpy, but once those bumps are worn down you cant re-surface without replacing a whole panel.

On top of that, what happens if the micro-processors suddenly crap out, or some of the LEDs blow. In the first case, any road markings would suddenly disappear, or conversely the road would suddenly light up blinding drivers. In the second case, you'd either have to replace a full panel, or have "acceptable defects" where a certain number of LEDS can blow and the panel won't be compromised.

If they manage to get this to work, kudos to them, but i just can't see it happening with what they've been showing. Would seem to be easier to harness the thermal energy of roads rather than solar energy acting on the roads.

@bcglorf

About 85,000 used nuclear fuel bundles are generated in Canada each year.

As of December 32, 2007, there were over 2,000,000 nuclear fuel bundles in Canada.

(source)

RADIOACTIVE WASTES
High Level Waste

Over 99 percent of the radioactivity created by a nuclear reactor is contained in the spent fuel. An unprotected individual standing one metre from a CANDU fuel bundle just out of the reactor would receive a lethal dose in seconds. This intensely radioactive material is called high level nuclear waste.

Spent fuel contains hundreds of radioactive substances created inside the reactors: (1) when uranium atoms split, the fragments are radioactive; these are the "fission products"; (2) when uranium atoms absorb neutrons without splitting, they are transmuted into "transuranium elements" such as plutonium, americium, and curium.

Due to the presence of these toxic materials, spent fuel remains extremely dangerous for millions of years.

RADIOACTIVE WASTES
Decommissioning Wastes

Structural materials in the core of an operating reactor become radioactive from neutron bombardment. The cost of dismantling such a radioactive structure approaches the cost of building it in the first place.

Current plans are to wait forty years, then use underwater cutting techniques to minimize radiation exposures to the workers. Hundreds of truckloads of radioactive rubble will result from each dismantled reactor.

(source)

And I'd like to see your work regarding the claim of how dirty or dangerous solar cells are.

And let's keep in mind cells are not the only form of solar energy.

And don't try to deny the fact that your solution to replace a dangerous, dirty energy technology (coal & oil) was to use an already existing dangerous and dirty energy technology (nuclear).

There is no establishment priority too banal for you to defend like a yapping poodle.

Solar panels are not more toxic than nuclear power, and their production would not cause ecologic disasters the likes of which we're seeing in the gulf. Yet another artless dodge on your part.

Every year we learn how to do more with less. The problem with solar energy now is that we really haven't spent that much time perfecting the science and production, but we are getting better.

And you're a lying sack of shit regarding nuclear going ten years without change. One nuclear plant creates thirty to forty tons of waste per year. That waste is deadly for tens of thousands of years. They have no where to put the stuff other than store it away and hope that nothing happens to it in the mean time. If something adverse does happen, then it's "Whoopsie! Not our problem any more!" and the taxpayers get stuck with the bill and the radioactivity.

Solar energy doesn't have to be "grid oriented." Every house has a refrigerator. Every house has a television, a computer, an HVAC unit, etc. Each house could have its own solar cells and supply its own energy.

You're as dense as QM. Your solution to any problem is no solution at all, just criticize anyone for offering an alternative.

>> ^bcglorf:

>> ^rougy:
You're still a fucking idiot.
The solar industry isn't going to spill millions of gallons of oil into the Gulf of Mexico.
The solar industry isn't going to leave radioactive waste piling up all over the place for generations to have to deal with in the future.
Why don't you go kick a Palestinian; you know it makes you feel better.
>> ^bcglorf:
>> ^rougy:
The nuclear industry simply cannot be trusted.
That's the bottom line.
They'll be just like the petroleum industry and constantly demand less regulation, and where they can't do that, they'll infiltrate the regulating agencies with their own people, often former employees, and water down the oversight from that angle.
It's not that nuclear power doesn't have a use or doesn't have a place.
But I think, for the ubiquitous public-power perspective, there are cleaner alternatives well worth exploring and developing.

The solar power industry simply cannot be trusted.
That's the bottom line.
They'll be just like the petroleum industry and constantly demand less regulation, and where they can't do that, they'll infiltrate the regulating agencies with their own people, often former employees, and water down the oversight from that angle.
It's not that solar power doesn't have a use or doesn't have a place.
But I think... I question if you thought this post through. Unless you were trolling, in which case well done and you caught me, again.


Solar panels have more toxic materials in them than batteries, and generally include a large quantity of actual batteries as part of any installation as well. If you replace our entire grid with solar your going to have an enormous load of toxic waste to dispose of on a more regular basis than any nuclear plant(they can go decades between fuel loads depending on how you build them). Or do you somehow expect a solar mega-corp to be more responsible for some reason?

Fission or Fusion I support.

Solar: I don't see the harm in using it regionally or locally where it makes geographic sense (places like deserts). But Solar will never in a bazillion years be able to serve as the primary power source for the human population. Statistically, human power needs peak and trough at irregular times that are unsupportable by direct feed power from solar energy. The only solution is to over-produce solar energy in massive quantities and store it in batteries. Batteries are far more 'dirty' than coal or gas. No. Solar is a curiosity - not a solution. Any power source that will serve as the world's primary power source must be able to deal with human power demands in a 'real world' manner - and solar ain't it. Same goes for wind.

Hydrogen cells: Haw haw! You can't change the laws of physics. There is more hydrogen in a gallon of gasoline than there is in a gallon or pure hydrogen. The energy compression exchange is too poor for hydrogen to be a power source for anything except a very large vehicle like a bus, or land-locked structures with specific, predictable power needs. Refining & compressing hydrogen to the point where it is usable as a 'fuel' for large populations is more energy expensive than burning wood.

by the time we achieve practical fusion it's going to be too late to stave off crisis

Stave off 'the crisis'... What crisis? There is enough oil on the planet to keep going another 80 years without even touching stuff like shale. If you go with shale then Earth can go 200+ years. There is no 'crisis' in terms of fossil fuels. Or are you talking about the AGW boogeyman that is routinely and consistently being proven to be a complete fabrication?

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Sure, nuclear reactors are expensive- but keep in mind that they've been sidelined in funding because they are NIMBY bogey man. Most of the problems you cite have been fixed in new model Thorium reactors (half-life is only 500 years, waste is small amount and they actually eat old types of nuclear waste for fuel!)

I'm not sure about that solar panel lifespan- I'm just going by someone I know who has them installed- it may have been the lead acid batteries that they had to swap out ever 5 years or so. Regardless, photovoltaic cell manufacture is a dirty fab process similar to chips- lots of toxic non-recyclable metals and burning a good deal of CO2.

I'm behind new-nuclear as a sensible stop-gap until fusion comes online.

.>> ^curiousity:
>> ^dag:
As far as efficiency goes, I'd take fission over solar.
The amount of square feet required to make solar energy as well as the material required for all of those panels- heavy metals and toxic chemicals- and a short equipment lifespan make them about as well thought-out as ethanol- which is to say not at all.
If we could get over our irrational nuclear fears- nuclear fission really is the best option for the planet in the short term, and then roll on the fusion when it gets here. 10 years right?

Much of the cost for fission reactors is hidden by government subsides. Cost is definitely a reason that there hasn't been a new nuclear reactor build in the US for over 30 years. They are damn expensive. And then the real cost comes with storage of radiated materials. A storage fee that will last a long time.
Last time I checked, most decent solar panels come with a 25-year warranty which means they might last 30 to 50 years if not damaged. There are also solar-based plants that focus sunlight to heat water to drive turbines - much more efficient that current solar panel technology. I can't compare solar energy to ethanol in good faith.

>> ^dag:
As far as efficiency goes, I'd take fission over solar.
The amount of square feet required to make solar energy as well as the material required for all of those panels- heavy metals and toxic chemicals- and a short equipment lifespan make them about as well thought-out as ethanol- which is to say not at all.
If we could get over our irrational nuclear fears- nuclear fission really is the best option for the planet in the short term, and then roll on the fusion when it gets here. 10 years right?


Much of the cost for fission reactors is hidden by government subsides. Cost is definitely a reason that there hasn't been a new nuclear reactor build in the US for over 30 years. They are damn expensive. And then the real cost comes with storage of radiated materials. A storage fee that will last a long time.

Last time I checked, most decent solar panels come with a 25-year warranty which means they might last 30 to 50 years if not damaged. There are also solar-based plants that focus sunlight to heat water to drive turbines - much more efficient that current solar panel technology. I can't compare solar energy to ethanol in good faith.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

As far as efficiency goes, I'd take fission over solar.

The amount of square feet required to make solar energy as well as the material required for all of those panels- heavy metals and toxic chemicals- and a short equipment lifespan make them about as well thought-out as ethanol- which is to say not at all.

If we could get over our irrational nuclear fears- nuclear fission really is the best option for the planet in the short term, and then roll on the fusion when it gets here. 10 years right?
>> ^Psychologic:
Fusion has some great advantages, especially in the power-per-area department, but I still like solar better for a few reasons.
Fusion is an "all or nothing" tech. It takes a very large investment up front before anything significant can be done with it. Solar, on the other hand, is more of an evolutionary process. It already works, so the main goal is lowering cost and increasing efficiency (which is happening pretty quickly these days).
However, I think one of the largest advantages solar has over fusion is that it doesn't require a power grid. Once the cost and efficiency reach a certain level then you can create your own power, which will be huge in remote low-income areas. Villages wouldn't have to wait for their region to invest in a reactor or worry about power distribution being damaged.
Fusion is great and will greatly benefit the world, but I don't think it's our best option at this point.

It's actually pointless to introduce the solar energy input into the equation at all Crake. The sun has shone and will shine for far longer than human beings will ever manage to survive on this planet. When I and many others look at agricultural reform we look at those aspects of the food production chain that humans can control and can change. The 'facilitation' you talk about is the entire crux of the modern day agricultural dilemma. There are an infinite number of ways that facilitation could happen, and the concern and debate is whether or not the road industry has chosen for us is the one that will bare the most fruit. Clearly it has not. The reasons, myriad, I don't want to write a thesis on the sift.

And I agree, when you start looking at government crop subsidies the energy calculation does lose its relevance. Why? Because you have jumped a 100 steps up a chain that was problematic at its root. The agricultural subsidy issue is a whole other Pandora's box.

Again, it's not the Haber process itself that is unsustainable, it is the entire industrial agricultural framework. The Haber process's dependence on natural gas is problematic, and even with future technological developments aside, it's a reductionist solution that undermines the multitude of complimentary farming techniques that could naturally introduce nitrogen into the soil. It's the kind of simplified agricultural solution that corporate agribusiness monopolies love, and it's this mutual reinforcement that causes concern. Again, the Haber process is a small piece of huge puzzle, we digress.

And with regards to future developments, let me illustrate why future developments are almost irrelevant to many of the problems at hand. In India for example there is a 500 year old tradition of aquaculture, for shrimp specifically. Most of the farms are small, local and sustainably run using various aquaculture farming methods (if you are interested you could read up on the Bheri system of aquaculture, just one of the many traditional systems).

This 'third world' farming technique as some might call it is just as profitable and has yields just as large as the more intensive commercial and industrial aquaculture methods. It has stood the test of time and it also forms the back bone of India's shrimp export economy, the largest in the world.

Industrial shrimp farming has had dismal success around the world. Taiwan, China, Mexico, Ecuador, all these countries have had huge issues keeping commercial shrimp farming sustainable. Wherever commercial shrimp farming has been tried, it has failed to a large degree, usually due to major disease outbreaks. That's why the call it the 'rape and run' industry.

Isn't it strange that the more industrial shrimp farms are introduced in India (due to government subsidies and incentives), the more 'environmental issues' they have to deal with that just didn't exist with the 'traditional third world systems' . . . mangrove destruction, drinking water pollution (from antibiotics and pesticides add to the shrimp ponds to minimize disease) , salinization of groundwater, etc.

Now you might argue with me that the solution to this problem potentially lies with future developments . . . a better antibiotic maybe, perhaps genetically engineering shrimp to be more resistant to disease and pollution, etc, or maybe the solution lies in adopting farming techniques that have been slowly perfected for the last 500 years and are proven to work, where the only interventions that could be made were natural ones and success was determined by how well you could maintain a balanced relationship with your local ecosystem. It is these farming systems and the mindset that they embody that I would like to see the world adopt, improve upon and gravitate towards.

Pinning your hopes for improvement on future developments and technology is totally misguided, especially when the core of the modern industrial agricultural foundation is so rotten. I have nothing against technology, but I'm not going to let the problems, born of brutish and unsophisticated industrial thinking, be overlooked by a corporate apologist futurist mindset. I'm not implying that's how you feel about the issue, but that the stance that many people have. There is an utter lack of holistic thinking in the industrial agricultural world (and everywhere else pretty much) and the direction it is leading us in is potentially frightening.

3030 way past the millennium, check it out
Yo, Deltron thunderforce, ain't no other source of sunlight
Two ton mic, leave you toungue-tied
Runnin amuck with technology with no apology
Shoutin out to my colony with third eye physiology
Millennium past apocalypse is all I spit
Make you swallow it - your weak style, I'll abolish it
with nuclear rockets they glued to your optics with sci-fi
Unsettlin, man and metal blends
Underground chillin with the Mole Man, and his whole fam
Inhibit bacterial growth, material wrote
Impenetrable, incontestable, indigestible intelligence
Never let a computer tell me SHIT
It's rapid innovation, penetratin
Artificial life forms, who bite songs
I'm a buy a vest, lie is next, then I'll flip the bio-techs
Right into the wireless; your third eye is hit with psoriasis
The mightiest, Deltron Zero
Traverse and purge the travesties that tempt your earholds
The area of distribution, lifts the clueless
My flow is like, liquid oxygen
Rip it often with specific impulse, increasin thrust
Grease the cuts - unleash a cluster of thoughts I muster
I talk to touch ya, and rupture commercial communications
Convert solar energy, into imagery
In the mind's eye, blindside the contagious
With radioactive isotopes to decay them
Atomic mass they small as fragments
I magnetize the avid lies
My radiation shields reflects, rejects Decepticons
who take the truth and stretch it long, while I bless a song
Next level incredible, metal melding
Flexability and my engine is never failing

All your rhyme histories combined couldn't violate
the Prime Optimus operative
Use my hydrometer to see how warm you are, watch me form a star
Hydrogen turned to helium when I shine
Ridin 'em revealin 'em leadin 'em to the vacuum
Interact with tunes in my digital citadel
Critical pivotal with the mental shit on you
Spit infinity, hiden energies too dope for our planet
Star spannin, slammin hymms with
mechanical limbs, scanning your lens
with cosmic rays, you'll all get played, your brain's inferior
I hit the lateral AND posterior
My science is eerier
Ionic bonding for your moronic pondering, meet the armorines
My micro machines, might throw your team, into paralysis
They not talented, just a malady
Worry 'bout a salary, creative casualty
Couldn't defrag my power density intensity
Nonequivalence, nine hundred Newtons
Crush you like croutons, you plus Houston
Hiero's like dipoles inside a silo
Turbulence ten-fold, never simple
Defies accepted methods development most unique
Paralyze central nervous when you close to me
Interstellar void fills with color, appears to bubble
and split into four like amoeba
Inhabitin planets with, grandiose boast
and coast like Silver Surfer, feel the purpoise
High velocity, verbal atrocities
Fire resistance, better hire assistants
My pistons glisten ultra, high performance
Inside your private quarters where I fry your components

Specter is about as moderate a Republican as John Boehner is.


Here's a brief rundown:

In the 110th Congress, Specter voted with his party 70.6 percent of the time

• Rated 12% by APHA, indicating a anti-public health voting record.
• Rated 81% by the Christian Coalition.
• Rated 0% by SANE, indicating a pro-military voting record.
• Rated 0% by the ARA, indicating an anti-senior voting record.


• Voted YES on Bush Administration Energy Policy.
• Voted YES on defunding renewable and solar energy.
• Voted YES on drilling ANWR on national security grounds
• Voted YES on allowing some lobbyist gifts to Congress.
• Voted NO on repealing tax subsidy for companies which move US jobs offshore.
• Voted NO on $100M to reduce teen pregnancy by education & contraceptives.
• Voted YES on prohibiting same-sex marriage
• Voted YES on Amendment to prohibit flag burning.
• Voted NO on banning drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
• Voted NO on including oil & gas smokestacks in mercury regulations.
• Voted NO on background checks at gun shows.
• Voted NO on negotiating bulk purchases for Medicare prescription drug.
• Voted NO on including prescription drugs under Medicare.
• Voted YES on Strengthening of the trade embargo against Cuba.
• Voted NO on requiring FISA court warrant to monitor US-to-foreign calls.
• Voted YES on telecomm deregulation.
• Voted YES on authorizing use of military force against Iraq


On March 9, 2006, the USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005 was signed into law. It amended the process for interim appointments of U.S. Attorneys, written into the bill by Arlen Specter during his chairmanship of the Senate Judiciary Committee.[18] The change allowed the Bush Administration to appoint interim U.S. attorneys without term limits, and without confirmation by the Senate. The Bush administration used the law to place at least eight interim attorneys into office in 2006.



There's ungodly amount more of really piss-poor judgment.