LOL! You attack my link for being some random website, and then insert your own random website as a counterpoint! Also, completely irrelevant because it ignores the facts on the ground the solar power is rapidly become more efficient, cheaper and viable. Which the solarbuzz site even states:
No, I am stating something and then saying that an author not affiliated with some random news website agrees with me that news website commonly lie or mislead in order to make it look like the next big break is happening tomorrow. In fact, the author is writing from a solar hobbyist site which if anything gives them reason to always shed praise for solar power. Can you buy solar panels for $1/watt? Yes, from some companies. Can you mass produce solar cells for $1/watt and then install them and produce enough power to outweigh the use and effects of fossil fuels? No.
You are getting yourself lost in the good but not good enough news. Prices have fallen since the increase in interest in solar power, but although interest has risen substantially it has not risen enough to lower prices to a number low enough to enable mass distribution.
So, you admit if interest were high enough, the prices would fall and it would enable mass distribution? Well then, I guess I had better continue to try and raise interests in solar power! I had also better support public subsidization, because that will also help mass-production and lower prices.
Good thing I"m not putting all my marbles in solar power, now is it? And seeing as how I haven't made any comments on the actual output of current systems, I can't imagine how I have overstated them.
I basically said solar power is not ready, but you countered by saying its becoming cheaper every year. I then say that even though its becoming cheaper, its not cheap enough and still cannot makeup enough power to be considered a viable alternative. If its not a viable alternative regardless of cost, then it cannot be used to replace fossil fuels globally and we are back at square one until it becomes cheap enough and efficient enough to mass produce and distribute.
But it is ready, just not for your straw man usage. People in northern climates are obviously going to have to find other sources of power, but I think the major thing you're doing is assuming I'm trying to switch our energy to one specific supply. I want to
diversify our energy supply, using mostly green energy:
Hydrogen, solar, wind, geo-thermal, biomass, algae-conversion (really, solar power), osmotic, hydro, nuclear, ethanol, natural gas - and yes, even fossil fuels where necessary. I know I haven't been overly clear about that, but I have never said anything to the contrary.
So is it ready for
everyone to use [/i]everywhere[/i]? No. Doesn't need to be. But remember, one of the usages of solar I brought up would be for developing nations, which have a much much smaller electrical demand than developed nations.
It's also untrue that solar power can't fully supply a house's energy needs. Many people with solar panels sell power back to the grid because they create more than they use.
Look up the new wind turbine designs. This last year saw numerous new designs that are not only more efficient, but take up less space, are aesthetically pleasing and don't have large propellers.
Thats great but irrelevant. Something being smaller, smoother, or more aesthetically pleasing don't say much for their ecological effects. The AWEA is still doing research to figure out exactly how the wind turbines will affect ocean life. Despite that, the larger wind turbines that will be placed out to see will be much larger than those on land and during construction and maintenance may do some harm. j
It's hardly irrelevant. One of the major problems cited with traditional turbines is their affect on birds. Smaller turbines, with no blades, gets rid of this problem. Either way, who says this
has to be put out at sea? It also gives wind power even greater efficiency, making large wind farms off shore less of a requirement. Ignoring all that, there is no requirement that such farms be built to begin with, and it still leaves plenty of room for wind energy to be a viable option for people.
One especially promising design:
https://www.mariahpower.com/Offshore turbine designs now under development will have larger rotors—at the moment, the largest has a 110-meter rotor diameter—because it is easier to transport large rotor blades by ship than by land.
Small wind turbines intended for residential or small business use are much smaller. Most have rotor diameters of 8 meters or less and would be mounted on towers of 40 meters in height or less.
So after I point out that such rotors are no longer required, you bring up that rotors present problems?
And Merry Christmas. On a personal note, I hope I keep most of the discussion idealistic, and not personal