>> ^Payback:
Keep the hydrogen and oxygen apart and pump them into your monster SUV, suddenly you can flip the bird at all the Prius owners as you run over them.


actually, that brings up an interesting point. If every place is making hydrogen gas as a means to store solar energy, than you eliminate the problem of changing over all your gas stations to hydrogen stations. You could fill up nearly anywhere as it would be mainly decentralized...out of gas, stop at the neighboors

What a terrible visualization for solar energy. For the time being, solar does require heaps and heaps of batteries to condition the power and to store it, making its impact quite large indeed.

Cool! And I thought it'd go well with the other solar energy clip I posted
http://www.videosift.com/video/Breakthrough-in-storing-Solar-Energy

>> ^Jinx:
>> ^GeeSussFreeK:Words.
Hey, nice post.
I read a thing a year or so ago about a new technology that enabled production of much cheaper and more efficient solar panels, but I can't seem to find any information on it now, so I wonder if it was just a pipe dream or something.
If I remember correctly the panels were paper thin and flexible, like laminated card, were durable to weather but eventually required replacing after 6 months or so of use. They were also supposed to be vastly superior in efficiency and their production allowed them to be "printed" en masse, and sold at approximately one dollar per metre square.
Obviously I was very excited about this. People could turn every south facing wall into a solar panel relatively cheaply and if the efficiency was as high as the article boasted you'd probably be able to light, heat and power most of the appliances in your house on your own energy. Alas, no cheap solar power yet.
Anyway, if all of Earths energy (with the exception of Geothermal, Nuclear and The Tides?) comes from the sun, be it stored in ancient pressurised plant matter or firewood, it would seem to make sense to find a good of way of tapping energy straight from the source.


Ya, little blurbs like that are usually kinda PR moves by certain solar research foundations to generate a flow of funds to their particular areas. Not saying thats a bad thing mind you, but its kinda a red herring. I say that because paper thin sheets of silica are not going to generate that much electrical power.

That said, it isn't unimportant. I think all of us have seen the caution signs and help phones on the road sides with the solar pannel coming off the top...very useful in that kind of aplication where low amparage is needed.

The problem is...well, at least with my house of nerds, is we use....a cubic butt ton of power (standard SI unit, look it up!). Mutiple computers, projector, game systems...a cornicopia of electronic wonders suck up a lot of juice. There is no way a paper thin PV cell is going to generate enough power to do all the work required of it...even if I coated my whole house with them.

Like I mentioned before, the energy generated is from the amount of "work" the photon has to do as it travles through the substrate. Unless they are doing some magic that I haven't become aware of (like nano tube redirection which was still theoretical last I heard) those paper thing sheets have a limited applications. Movement is good, so being able to cheaply produce those things is good, and my lead to further discoveries down the line, but it is mainly a red herring it seems.

Like I said before, I have the highest hopes for PV cells than anything else I have seen. And combining it with more effective means of electrolysis is very smart indeed. Hats off to them for all their work. Hopefully, PV technology is blessed with "bright" ideas. But I really think its got a long long road ahead of it...think of it this way, it is THE most researched green tech of the past 40 years, and yet, we are still only as far as we are...which is bare minimum public use this make solar panda sad indeed, but hopefully, he will be basking in the glow of nearly infinite energy!

/rant!

(there most likely a mass typoes here as its 1am...clean those up in the morrow)

>> ^charliem:
Batteries get hot.
That heat is lost energy.
Batteries also have a limited life, they are dirty to dispose of, and cost a fortune to produce.
This way is much simpler.
Break water into its constituant parts with excess elec, then recombine them in a fuel cell later to regain that energy.
Simple, cheap, effective, very little waste, efficient....brilliant.


Exactly the answer I was looking for.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:Words.

Hey, nice post.

I read a thing a year or so ago about a new technology that enabled production of much cheaper and more efficient solar panels, but I can't seem to find any information on it now, so I wonder if it was just a pipe dream or something.

If I remember correctly the panels were paper thin and flexible, like laminated card, were durable to weather but eventually required replacing after 6 months or so of use. They were also supposed to be vastly superior in efficiency and their production allowed them to be "printed" en masse, and sold at approximately one dollar per metre square.

Obviously I was very excited about this. People could turn every south facing wall into a solar panel relatively cheaply and if the efficiency was as high as the article boasted you'd probably be able to light, heat and power most of the appliances in your house on your own energy. Alas, no cheap solar power yet.

Anyway, if all of Earths energy (with the exception of Geothermal, Nuclear and The Tides?) comes from the sun, be it stored in ancient pressurised plant matter or firewood, it would seem to make sense to find a good of way of tapping energy straight from the source.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
Would it really be enough to supply a modern house through the waking dusk till dawn?


It doesnt have to be, even if it only makes it through half the night to start with, it would absolutley annihilate grid-based power demands.

Think how many coal plants you could shut down.

Ya, I see solar technology as one of the best cures to the energy crysis. I just don't see how to overcome the fragility of the silica based cell technology. I am hoping nano tech comes up with a cure to the testy and fragile nature of silicon crystal. This hybrid of storing solar energy is a good idea though, I wonder how much surplus they expect out of their solar system to make all that hydrogen. Would it really be enough to supply a modern house through the waking dusk till dawn?

Coincidence. It is true that solar energy (e.g. solar flairs) are much slower than the speed of light, so the argument there, is over. BUT, the thought that a solar eruption of that size would cause an earthquake is hard to buy. The energies are not very related. There is a REMOTE possibility that it was the "straw that broke the camel's back" but that is seriously remote. They should be more concerned with their electronic infrastructure than their tectonic plates. Solar flairs are far more dangerous to your computer than to your ground.

I think the only way mars could be successfully settled is if there was a reliable energy source. As stated the amount of solar energy that makes it to Mars is much less than our planet, and while there is wind (that can be very fast) it lacks the same force our wind does, do to Mar's thin atmosphere. I'm not even sure nuclear would be a possibility. While nuclear power has been used to power long range probes, I'm thinking the kind of power required by some kind of settlement would require an all out plant. Maybe not one even close to these size of those in service, but something that could provide a good measure of power over long periods of time.

Excellent article. I had always assumed that the theory of how the edge of heliosphere would fluctuate based on the amount and types of cosmic rays it encounters emenating from the center of our Galaxy (similar in a way that the planets in our solar system are bombarded with solar energies yes our atmosphere and magnetic field protects us from many of them.)
The "atmosphere" of our solar system would act in a similar way, however there are still many unknowns that are yet to be discovered still. Voyager II is expected to pass through into interstellar space within 7 to 10 years and it supposedly has enough power to last until 2020.


"The Sun is moving upwards, out of the plane of the Milky Way, at a speed of 7 kilometers per second. Currently the Sun lies 50 light-years above the mid-plane of the galaxy, and its motion is steadily carrying it further away.

But the gravitational pull of the stars in the Galactic (Milky Way) plane is slowing down the Sun's escape. The astronomer Frank Bash estimates that in 14 million years the sun will reach its maximum height above the Galactic disk. From that 250 light-year position, it will be pulled back towards the plane of the Galaxy. Passing through, it will travel to a point 250 light-years below the disk, then oscillate upwards again to reach its present position 66 million years from now. We crossed the plane 2 million years ago. We are currently in the thick of the galactic disk and our view of distant regions is largely blocked by dust but 10-20 million years from now, our motion will allow a full view of our starry galaxy.

The Sun-Galactic center distance is 25,000 light-years -- plus or minus 2,000 light-years. The galaxy is thought to be 100,000 light-years in diameter and we are thought to be about halfway out from the center (used to be thought that we were two-thirds out).

If you have a good idea of the Sun's distance from the Galactic center, then the solar system's speed can be approximated. Using speed measurements of the gas at different distances from the Galactic center, the Sun appears to be cruising along at 200 kilometers per second and it takes 240 million years to complete the grand circuit around the Galaxy. This speed is an absolute speed."

Note:
1 light-year = 9.46*10^{15} meters
1 parsec = 3.08*10^{16} meters

^ From the book: _Guide to the Galaxy_, 1994; Henbest and Couper; Cambridge University Press.

i cannot vouch for these books, but I would say there IS information out there pertaining to chemtrails.

__________________________________

Chemtrails Confirmed
by W Thomas
Book Description
Chemtrails are reported all around the planet and this is the first research record to verify what Airline Pilots, Police Officers, U.S. Marines, Air Traffic Controllers and Tanker Crews are reporting. This book will reveal the scientist who are working n the project, Congressman who oversaw "America's exotic weapons" project and the details so you can understand the Chemtrail project

About the Author
William Thomas is an independent journalist. His previous works include Scorched Earth: The Military's War Against the Enviroment and Bringing the War Home, a book which shows the suppression of the inoculations of troops in the first Gulf war and the diseased troops brining home the diseases to their family and friends.

__________________________________

Contrails, Chemtrails & Artificial Clouds
by Dave Dahl

The author, a Navy veteran and former university teacher, carefully explains how these toxic stratospheric clouds absorb and re-emit solar energy, warming the stratosphere; and greenhouse gases introduced by jets into the upper atmosphere cause additional heat to be trapped, preventing its escape into space and ultimately warming the Earth, altering our climate. His presentation is objective, informative and makes excellent use of aerial photography, charts and graphs. This science in chewable bite size paragraphs and bullet points is an outstanding introduction for anyone interested in advocating on behalf of cleaner air and slowing global warming (and that should be all of us). It gives readers an excellent overview, glossary of terms and an extensive listing of web sites that are additional recourses.

__________________________________


“H. R. 2977 of the 107th Congress (1st Session)” introduced by Dennis Kucinich on October 2, 2001 titled, "Space Preservation Act of 2001." In section, "B" of this bill you will find the term, "chemtrails" listed under exotic weapons systems.

"The term `exotic weapons systems' includes weapons designed to damage space or natural ecosystems (such as the ionosphere and upper atmosphere) or climate, weather, and tectonic systems with the purpose of inducing damage or destruction upon a target population or region on earth or in space." (Bill H.R. 2997 of the 107th Congress - Space Preservation Act of 2001)

Additionally, The Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques clearly states that, "each state party undertakes not to engage in military or any other hostile use of environmental modification techniques."

"As used in Article I, the term "environmental modification techniques" refers to any technique for changing -- through the deliberate manipulation of natural processes -- the dynamics, composition or structure of the Earth, including its biota, lithosphere, hydrosphere and atmosphere, or of outer space." (Article 2 of The Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques)



__________________________________

First of all, that eye tick is really freakin me out. Mine ticks at times as well and it really bugs the heck out of me. I can't imagine how bad that one must be driving her nuts.

Second, it's really not worth going into all of this guys arguments in a forum like this but I have to pick a few out.

1) "To call it global warming is correct, but almost a misnomer. What we are really doing is adding immense amounts of energy to a system..." Interesting attempt an an explanation here. I think he was attempting to say something along the lines of "... adding CO2 to the atmosphere means that more solar energy is retained by the system." I think it is important not to give approximations or short answers in a discussion like this.

2) 80% reduction in CO2 emissions? Good luck with that. Good of him to start with an easily attainable goal. I don't care that he does mean by 2050. It's not likely to happen without a dramatic new discovery in energy production.

3) I went to the web site he is pimping. Nowhere on it does it explain how we are to achieve these goals in a realistic manner. It has fluff like "More biofeuls, hydropower, solar, and wind" but it also says "eliminate current generation of nuclear plants and do not license new ones." Energy demands in the US and worldwide are steadily increasing. Even with conservation, the rate of increase will only slow not reverse. There isn't enough fresh water on the planet to replace fossil fuels with biofeuls, nor is there enough arable land to grow all these miracle fuels. Hydroelectric power has been under attack for decades because of the damage it does to natural systems and neither solar nor wind are realistically economical or practical to replace a substantial portion of fossil fuels. Demands to "fix the planet now" are all well and good, but you need to provide realistic solutions rather than pie-in-the-sky platitudes.

In my opinion, the best hope for a major shift in the production of energy will be development of a practical cellulosic ethanol production system. Until that happens, we are going to need to invest in energy sources that have at least the potential of meeting our needs.

"Solar power cost way the hell too much, takes up way the hell too much room and it takes decades before you regain you investment.

As to the cost, I think that has more to do with the current production quantity and methods; the more solar energy alternatives we produce, the more likely the cost will lessen and the methods grow more efficient.

As to the space, I think a slab of solar cells on the roof of every house would be as efficient as the common driveway.

The greatest obstacle to solar energy is that it will allow each building to generate its own energy, which is money out of the pocket of the power company.

If every home in the Southwest of America can generate its own electricity, there will be no more need for companies like Xcel.

My two cents.