Interesting article on solar power: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jul/07/solar-has-won-even-if-coal-were-free-to-burn-power-stations-couldnt-compete
It looks like there are places where solar power is becoming economically viable to the point that it's beginning to be disruptive to the established power ecosystem. I found this interesting, as I've been reading about attempts at holding back solar power through the use of regulatory and monopolistic practices (i.e. power companies charging people for installing solar panels on their property etc).
I get the impression that in the US, solar power has become part of the political 'culture war' at least somewhat (what hasn't?), but that it's not necessarily a completely perfect and permanent fit. Yes, solar seems sort of newfangled and hippieish and so on and has often been dismissed as an impractical pipe-dream.
On the other hand, the ability of individuals and individual businesses to have more control over their own energy seems appealing enough to a broad swathe of independent minded don't-tread-on-me types on the right wing as well, and if the economics start being clearly favourable for solar (as the article says is happening) I expect it to be more appealing across the spectrum in the US... or are there other factors that make that unlikely?
Is the "rolling coal" and sentiments widespread enough that it will seriously set back solar power, even if the economic argument is strong? I've seen 'anti-environmentalist' attitudes expressed here on languish on occasion, but I'm unsure to what degree it's just habitual languish posturing and to what degree it represents a real and significant attitude in America.
What's your take on solar power?
Solar Power is troublesome to deal with because of its variable output and can be really disruptive once it is popular enough to be a large percentage of the input power to a grid. I mean those things are hard enough to operate with consistent power inputs. I think the widespread use of things like solar and win require new grid technology. If we can handle that problem I do not see any particular reason why we couldn't use huge amounts of solar here in the sunny SW United States.
Spicey loves all the green jobs it provides.
Quote from: Valmy on July 09, 2014, 12:48:58 PM
Solar Power is troublesome to deal with because of its variable output and can be really disruptive once it is popular enough to be a large percentage of the input power to a grid. I mean those things are hard enough to operate with consistent power inputs. I think the widespread use of things like solar and win require new grid technology. If we can handle that problem I do not see any particular reason why we couldn't use huge amounts of solar here in the sunny SW United States.
:yes:
Solar's future might be a little bit too bright - some plants are cooking bird in mid-flight.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/wild_things/2014/07/08/solar_power_plants_burning_birds_usfws_report_on_california_facilities_and.html?wpisrc=hpsponsoredd2
Quote from: Valmy on July 09, 2014, 12:48:58 PM
Solar Power is troublesome to deal with because of its variable output and can be really disruptive once it is popular enough to be a large percentage of the input power to a grid. I mean those things are hard enough to operate with consistent power inputs. I think the widespread use of things like solar and win require new grid technology. If we can handle that problem I do not see any particular reason why we couldn't use huge amounts of solar here in the sunny SW United States.
The article mentioned that the mass installation of batteries to store excess power was a very likely next step, essentially allowing households (and businesses) using solar power to move off the grid almost entirely. The grid issue, then, may prove to be less of an issue in the end.
QuoteSpicey loves all the green jobs it provides.
I'm actually quite interested in Spicey's take on this. He does a good job of coming across as a dedicated culture warrior when he choses to, but he is also down with cogent arguments and analysis when the mood strikes him.
On the surface, I'd expect him to be against solar power and ridicule it because that seems to be the default 'conservative' position in the US, but I expect him to be open to rational economic analysis as well if the facts are convincing enough. And personally, I expect "pay a couple of grand and never have to pay another power bill again" to be pretty convincing across the political spectrum if/when we get to that point, whatever your feelings may be on environmental issues.
From the article:
QuoteThe truly scary prospect for coal generators, however, is that this equation will become economically viable in the big cities. Investment bank UBS says this could happen as early as 2018.
The CSIRO, in its Future Grid report, says that more than half of electricity by 2040 may be generated, and stored, by "prosumers" at the point of consumption. But they warn that unless the incumbent utilities can adapt their business models to embrace this change, then 40% of consumers will quit the grid.
... this is all in an Australian context, but if it works out I don't think the repercussions will be confined to that location only.
A small solar generation facility is being built on the site of an abandoned mine in Kimberley BC to test the viability. The backers hope it will grow into something big.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/sunmine-solar-farm-construction-begins-in-kimberley-b-c-1.2699478
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 09, 2014, 01:17:29 PM
A small solar generation facility is being built on the site of an abandoned mine in Kimberley BC to test the viability. The backers hope it will grow into something big.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/sunmine-solar-farm-construction-begins-in-kimberley-b-c-1.2699478
Good luck to them. I'm guessing Kimberly gets more sunshine than our part of BC does.
Vast battery capacity doesn't sound eco-friendly.
Quote from: The Brain on July 09, 2014, 01:29:23 PM
Vast battery capacity doesn't sound eco-friendly.
Yeah... but in the end energy decisions are going to be made on economic grounds.
Quote from: The Brain on July 09, 2014, 01:29:23 PM
Vast battery capacity doesn't sound eco-friendly.
The eco-friendliness of solar is really over-rated. The mining of the materials for construction alone is not something Gaia-fans will like. However it does help with that greenhouse gases thing if that's your thing.
Quote from: Valmy on July 09, 2014, 01:30:46 PM
Quote from: The Brain on July 09, 2014, 01:29:23 PM
Vast battery capacity doesn't sound eco-friendly.
The eco-friendliness of solar is really over-rated. The mining of the materials for construction alone is not something Gaia-fans will like. However it does help with that greenhouse gases thing if that's your thing.
So maybe the trick to get the coal-rollers amongst the right wing on board is to make it clear to them that there's environmental damage from solar power too.
Quote from: Jacob on July 09, 2014, 01:20:28 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 09, 2014, 01:17:29 PM
A small solar generation facility is being built on the site of an abandoned mine in Kimberley BC to test the viability. The backers hope it will grow into something big.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/sunmine-solar-farm-construction-begins-in-kimberley-b-c-1.2699478
Good luck to them. I'm guessing Kimberly gets more sunshine than our part of BC does.
Yes, also it is high on a mountain ridge which may be above the level of low lying cloud and it benefits from solar rays reflecting off the snow. It also has the advantage that all the electrical infrastructure left over from the mine is still there and so they dont have to go to the expense of laying power cables to hook up to the power grid. A good low cost way to test it out.
Also I have heard that Canadian researchers have developed a silicon coating which can deliver signficantly more efficient panels and at a signficantly lower cost of production (basically it is just painted on). They are still in development but advances like that will make the cost per kiliwatt hour for solar power much more attractive as an alternative. If BC could develop a power grid which was mainly reliant on hydro and solar that would be great but it is a long way off yet.
Quote from: Valmy on July 09, 2014, 01:30:46 PM
Quote from: The Brain on July 09, 2014, 01:29:23 PM
Vast battery capacity doesn't sound eco-friendly.
The eco-friendliness of solar is really over-rated. The mining of the materials for construction alone is not something Gaia-fans will like. However it does help with that greenhouse gases thing if that's your thing.
That was a temporary medical condition.
Quote from: Jacob on July 09, 2014, 01:11:14 PM
The article mentioned that the mass installation of batteries to store excess power was a very likely next step, essentially allowing households (and businesses) using solar power to move off the grid almost entirely. The grid issue, then, may prove to be less of an issue in the end.
US households average just under 30 kWh per day. If you assume that ~half of that would need to be stored each day (meaning on cloudy, rainy or winter days you'd still probably have to draw off the grid) that's 15 kWh of storage. At the moment Lead Acid batteries are the cheapest bulk option, and it's about 25 kg per kWh of storage. Which means our house would need 375 kg of batteries to be mostly off the grid in the sunny days of summer. To cover a 4-5 day span with little or no sun you'd probably need 10 times that or 3750 kg. Let's not get into the maintenance that that amount of Lead Acid batteries would require. This article (http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2011/09/got-storage-how-hard-can-it-be/) estimates that ongoing costs of battery storage would be about $0.30 per kWh, which puts the average American family's electricity storage bill at $270 per month.
At the moment mass storage is still far too expensive to be that practical.
Both the coal people and the solar/wind people are in denial. The only people with all the answers are the natural gas folks. :)
Quote from: Jacob on July 09, 2014, 12:40:30 PM
Yes, solar seems sort of newfangled and hippieish and so on and has often been dismissed as an impractical pipe-dream.
[...]
What's your take on solar power?
It depends where. Good luck using solar power in Quebec. You'll be able to manage air conditionning, maybe, in the 2 months of summer we have. Forget about using it for heating, it requires too much energy for the sun we have in winter, you'd require massive solar panels, or a massavie solar power plant accompanied by another reliable source of energy.
I see the same problem as wind turbines: they are not made for everywhere, they can not be depended upon for stable energy supply, but combined with other source of energy (hydro power plant) they can reduce the size requirements for those (a few wind turbines can let us build hydro dams 25% smaller than without them, as an example).
In some desert areas of the US, I can see the appeal of solar power. Maybe even in BC, but in most other place, it is a pipe dream. The size of the panels required to produce enough energy just make them too big to be convenient.
Quote from: frunk on July 09, 2014, 02:03:24 PM
Quote from: Jacob on July 09, 2014, 01:11:14 PM
The article mentioned that the mass installation of batteries to store excess power was a very likely next step, essentially allowing households (and businesses) using solar power to move off the grid almost entirely. The grid issue, then, may prove to be less of an issue in the end.
US households average just under 30 kWh per day. If you assume that ~half of that would need to be stored each day (meaning on cloudy, rainy or winter days you'd still probably have to draw off the grid) that's 15 kWh of storage. At the moment Lead Acid batteries are the cheapest bulk option, and it's about 25 kg per kWh of storage. Which means our house would need 375 kg of batteries to be mostly off the grid in the sunny days of summer. To cover a 4-5 day span with little or no sun you'd probably need 10 times that or 3750 kg. Let's not get into the maintenance that that amount of Lead Acid batteries would require. This article (http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2011/09/got-storage-how-hard-can-it-be/) estimates that ongoing costs of battery storage would be about $0.30 per kWh, which puts the average American family's electricity storage bill at $270 per month.
At the moment mass storage is still far too expensive to be that practical.
Batteries, yes. Still too inefficient.
What about other methods of energy storage - like using solar or wind, when available, to pump water uphill into a reserve, then using hydro from the reserve as needed?
Quote from: Malthus on July 09, 2014, 02:29:07 PM
Batteries, yes. Still too inefficient.
What about other methods of energy storage - like using solar or wind, when available, to pump water uphill into a reserve, then using hydro from the reserve as needed?
That'd still keep you on the grid, wouldn't it? Or are you suggesting that uphill water pumping is suitable as a household level solution?
Quote from: Malthus on July 09, 2014, 02:29:07 PM
What about other methods of energy storage - like using solar or wind, when available, to pump water uphill into a reserve, then using hydro from the reserve as needed?
That's massively expensive for the amount of energy stored, which explains why it hasn't taken off despite having had the technology for a century. Plus it's heavily dependant on geography.
The Holy Grail of renewable energy storage would be the advent of the electric car. If we could get a revolutionary design that made battery charge cycles a non-issue, we could leverage all the cars parked at work or home as a distributed grid regulation unit.
In other words, if people only needed their cars at night?
But we would ruin OPEC and end European reliance on Natural Gas and....oh I get it now. Sorry Norway.
Quote from: Jacob on July 09, 2014, 02:33:15 PM
Quote from: Malthus on July 09, 2014, 02:29:07 PM
Batteries, yes. Still too inefficient.
What about other methods of energy storage - like using solar or wind, when available, to pump water uphill into a reserve, then using hydro from the reserve as needed?
That'd still keep you on the grid, wouldn't it? Or are you suggesting that uphill water pumping is suitable as a household level solution?
An "on the grid" solution, I suspect.
Quote from: Malthus on July 09, 2014, 02:29:07 PM
Batteries, yes. Still too inefficient.
What about other methods of energy storage - like using solar or wind, when available, to pump water uphill into a reserve, then using hydro from the reserve as needed?
The article (http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2011/09/got-storage-how-hard-can-it-be/) I linked talks about home energy storage options, including gravity based. For individual houses it's completely impractical (In the idealized case to get 30 minutes of typical household running time requires raising a bedroom sized volume of water 10 meters straight up). It's also relatively inefficient, although if you have tons of excess energy during the day that may not matter.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 09, 2014, 02:38:45 PM
In other words, if people only needed their cars at night?
Solar is not the only renewable energy source. Wind, for example, works also at night, when demand is lowest.
The biggest impact would be simply to be able to "smooth out" the output of variable sources such as these.
Quote from: frunk on July 09, 2014, 02:46:15 PM
Quote from: Malthus on July 09, 2014, 02:29:07 PM
Batteries, yes. Still too inefficient.
What about other methods of energy storage - like using solar or wind, when available, to pump water uphill into a reserve, then using hydro from the reserve as needed?
The article (http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2011/09/got-storage-how-hard-can-it-be/) I linked talks about home energy storage options, including gravity based. For individual houses it's completely impractical (In the idealized case to get 30 minutes of typical household running time requires raising a bedroom sized volume of water 10 meters straight up). It's also relatively inefficient, although if you have tons of excess energy during the day that may not matter.
Certainly, it is impractical in your bedroom. Not so bad if you are raising the level of, say, a major lake somewhere. It isn't very efficient, but again, that's maybe not so important.
Also, add "coal rolling" to the list of stupid things I would never have believed anyone would actually do.
Quote from: Malthus on July 09, 2014, 03:07:10 PM
Also, add "coal rolling" to the list of stupid things I would never have believed anyone would actually do.
Agreed. Wow. I'd never heard of this before, but it is an amazingly stupid thing to do. You damage your own vehicle, purely so that you can damage your environment.
Hopefully, there will be a major crackdown on this. Stupidity is its own reward, but with enough fines, it can be a reward for the rest of us, as well.
Quote from: grumbler on July 09, 2014, 04:51:46 PM
Quote from: Malthus on July 09, 2014, 03:07:10 PM
Also, add "coal rolling" to the list of stupid things I would never have believed anyone would actually do.
Agreed. Wow. I'd never heard of this before, but it is an amazingly stupid thing to do. You damage your own vehicle, purely so that you can damage your environment.
Hopefully, there will be a major crackdown on this. Stupidity is its own reward, but with enough fines, it can be a reward for the rest of us, as well.
Yeah same. Never heard of it and it should be punished.
What is coal rolling exactly?
Quote from: The Larch on July 09, 2014, 05:28:14 PM
What is coal rolling exactly?
http://www.inquisitr.com/1342582/coal-rolling-what-is-it-why-do-it-and-is-it-legal/
Modifying your engine to deliberately spew as much black smoke as possible, to troll "liberals".
My parents bought an electric hybrid car yesterday. :mellow:
I don't know what's more surprising; that my father bought an electric car, or that he bought a Ford. Always been a GM family. Pop Pop just totaled his '55 Bel Air in heaven right now.
Quote from: Malthus on July 09, 2014, 05:39:16 PM
Quote from: The Larch on July 09, 2014, 05:28:14 PM
What is coal rolling exactly?
http://www.inquisitr.com/1342582/coal-rolling-what-is-it-why-do-it-and-is-it-legal/
Modifying your engine to deliberately spew as much black smoke as possible, to troll "liberals".
Seems to be a good way to identify mouth breathing morons.
Solar power is simply not practical in big cities.
I own both Kinder Morgan and Entergy stock right now, so I am opposed to solar. More nuclear plants, pipelines, and gas guzzling PLZ.
I suppose owning Enornoc I want more retarded renewable legislation to fuck up supply. :hmm:
Quote from: Barrister on July 09, 2014, 01:10:45 PM
Solar's future might be a little bit too bright - some plants are cooking bird in mid-flight.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/wild_things/2014/07/08/solar_power_plants_burning_birds_usfws_report_on_california_facilities_and.html?wpisrc=hpsponsoredd2
Just gotta wear shades.
I still ain't buying solar panels to put on the roof.
I recall from many years back that producing solar panels (the whole production cycle from getting resources to final installation) used to cost more energy than the panel would produce in its life time.
Has this improved by now?
Quote from: The Larch on July 09, 2014, 05:47:20 PM
Seems to be a good way to identify mouth breathing morons.
Too many false negatives for this test to be useful.
I looked for coal rolling in youtube and found videos of people deliberately spewing black smoke at other people. This is way beyond making a political protest. I just don't think this is a good way to garner political support for their cause.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cbAhfThNoco
Coal isn't a good source of power. Solar is a good secondary source, if you hydro or similar as the primary energy source.
I have no doubt solar will become more affordable and competitive the next, say, decade.
I read this a few days ago. Pretty funny about people being allowed solar panels only
If they promise not to sell it back.
Solar is nice and all but it is often forgotten that it is reliant on rather rare rare earths. I wonder how much capacity for it the earth has.
Quote from: Tyr on July 10, 2014, 01:51:33 AM
I read this a few days ago. Pretty funny about people being allowed solar panels only
If they promise not to sell it back.
Solar is nice and all but it is often forgotten that it is reliant on rather rare rare earths. I wonder how much capacity for it the earth has.
That's one of the reasons putting solar panels for power generation on every house is questionable. But there are other ways to make (direct) solar power.
Quote from: Tyr on July 10, 2014, 01:51:33 AM
Pretty funny about people being allowed solar panels only
If they promise not to sell it back.
Makes perfect sense under a system in which the utilities are required by law to purchase any and all renewable electricity offered by independent producers at a price determined by the government.
Quote from: Monoriu on July 10, 2014, 12:11:22 AM
I looked for coal rolling in youtube and found videos of people deliberately spewing black smoke at other people. This is way beyond making a political protest. I just don't think this is a good way to garner political support for their cause.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cbAhfThNoco (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cbAhfThNoco)
It's like shitting in your own drinking water to protest clean water standards.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on July 10, 2014, 12:04:25 AM
Quote from: The Larch on July 09, 2014, 05:47:20 PM
Seems to be a good way to identify mouth breathing morons.
Too many false negatives for this test to be useful.
But the positives are true 100%.
Quote from: Monoriu on July 10, 2014, 12:11:22 AM
I looked for coal rolling in youtube and found videos of people deliberately spewing black smoke at other people. This is way beyond making a political protest. I just don't think this is a good way to garner political support for their cause.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cbAhfThNoco
Deliberately spewing a cloud of dense black smoke on guys riding bikes and motorcyles? Strikes me as some kind of assault.
If they did that to some Hell's Angels type, and a gang of them pulled this guy over, yanked him out of his truck, and smashed his truck to shit, I would ... let them off with a warning. :D
Quote from: Jacob on July 09, 2014, 01:11:14 PM
I'm actually quite interested in Spicey's take on this. He does a good job of coming across as a dedicated culture warrior when he choses to, but he is also down with cogent arguments and analysis when the mood strikes him.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.inkace.com%2Fmedia%2Fcatalog%2Fproduct%2Fcache%2F1%2Fimage%2F9df78eab33525d08d6e5fb8d27136e95%2Ff%2Fr%2Ffriends_of_coal.jpg&hash=392fdd0a012da616ef805339a5255a246ad97b3e)
He is a West Virginian. Only Tyr rivals their passionate devotion to coal.
Quote from: Syt on July 09, 2014, 11:30:39 PM
I recall from many years back that producing solar panels (the whole production cycle from getting resources to final installation) used to cost more energy than the panel would produce in its life time.
Has this improved by now?
They are much more efficient now than they used to be, and finally crossed the threshold of actually producing more energy than it takes to make them back in...erm...2009 I think.
Looks like it's becoming popular in India as well
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/07/10/3457917/india-solar-revolution/
I think even in Northern Europe, solar panels can be a good backup for primary energy bearers.
In sunny parts of the world, solar should be a no-brainer, really.
I'd paint my roof with that spray-on solar collection stuff. A no-brainer, really.
I wonder what the fire risk would be.
Quote from: Jacob on July 09, 2014, 12:40:30 PM
Interesting article on solar power: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jul/07/solar-has-won-even-if-coal-were-free-to-burn-power-stations-couldnt-compete
It looks like there are places where solar power is becoming economically viable to the point that it's beginning to be disruptive to the established power ecosystem. I found this interesting, as I've been reading about attempts at holding back solar power through the use of regulatory and monopolistic practices (i.e. power companies charging people for installing solar panels on their property etc).
I get the impression that in the US, solar power has become part of the political 'culture war' at least somewhat (what hasn't?), but that it's not necessarily a completely perfect and permanent fit. Yes, solar seems sort of newfangled and hippieish and so on and has often been dismissed as an impractical pipe-dream.
On the other hand, the ability of individuals and individual businesses to have more control over their own energy seems appealing enough to a broad swathe of independent minded don't-tread-on-me types on the right wing as well, and if the economics start being clearly favourable for solar (as the article says is happening) I expect it to be more appealing across the spectrum in the US... or are there other factors that make that unlikely?
Is the "rolling coal" and sentiments widespread enough that it will seriously set back solar power, even if the economic argument is strong? I've seen 'anti-environmentalist' attitudes expressed here on languish on occasion, but I'm unsure to what degree it's just habitual languish posturing and to what degree it represents a real and significant attitude in America.
What's your take on solar power?
I don't see it in political terms
per se. To me it's simply a question of technology and economics. The technology simply has to advance to a point where solar power can provide for energy needs more cheaply in order to become more widely used. At this point, there's no guarantee that the needed technological developments will happen. I don't really have much personal political/cultural investment in it one way or the other.
Quote from: Valmy on July 10, 2014, 08:56:12 AM
Quote from: Syt on July 09, 2014, 11:30:39 PM
I recall from many years back that producing solar panels (the whole production cycle from getting resources to final installation) used to cost more energy than the panel would produce in its life time.
Has this improved by now?
They are much more efficient now than they used to be, and finally crossed the threshold of actually producing more energy than it takes to make them back in...erm...2009 I think.
Interesting, thanks!
Quote from: dps on July 12, 2014, 12:02:05 AM
I don't see it in political terms per se. To me it's simply a question of technology and economics. The technology simply has to advance to a point where solar power can provide for energy needs more cheaply in order to become more widely used. At this point, there's no guarantee that the needed technological developments will happen. I don't really have much personal political/cultural investment in it one way or the other.
But if other technologies are heavily subsidized and this one isn't, it will take forever to achieve economic viability, though.
I do think it's true that in the long run, most power will be generated at the point of use and old-school utilities will mostly go away.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on July 12, 2014, 03:19:02 PM
I do think it's true that in the long run, most power will be generated at the point of use and old-school utilities will mostly go away.
I just don't see it happening.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi62.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fh101%2FMonoriu%2FArchitecture-Density-in-Hong-Kong_zpsf4ba2576.jpg&hash=682b628daec02d5b1cda9e4cfa774d25b4162481) (http://s62.photobucket.com/user/Monoriu/media/Architecture-Density-in-Hong-Kong_zpsf4ba2576.jpg.html)
Is that an ominous warning that we will all be forced to join the hive?
Little boxes
In the skyline
Little boxes
Filled with ticky tacky
Anyway, it's not inconceivable to imagine power generators for large buildings shared by the residents therein, since most skyscrapers have them now for backup. If it were efficient enough it could be the primary.
But a highrise concrete box is going to have less surface area per resident than a deluxe 3 bedroom ranch in the burbs.
The Third World smells funny. Must be all that wet laundry.
Yes. The generators in use in buildings now are diesel or (usually)natgas. It would have to be something other than that I would think.
Maybe the economics of it would help us get away from packing ourselves in like rats too.
Quote from: Monoriu on July 12, 2014, 03:31:31 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on July 12, 2014, 03:19:02 PM
I do think it's true that in the long run, most power will be generated at the point of use and old-school utilities will mostly go away.
I just don't see it happening.
Most places in the World are not Hong Kong
Also, there was just a victory for distributed roof top power in Iowa.
http://cleantechnica.com/2014/07/12/huge-victory-for-distributed-rooftop-solar/
And work continues on see through solar panels
http://cleantechnica.com/2014/03/27/see-through-solar-windows-go-big/
Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 12, 2014, 09:01:03 PM
Quote from: Monoriu on July 12, 2014, 03:31:31 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on July 12, 2014, 03:19:02 PM
I do think it's true that in the long run, most power will be generated at the point of use and old-school utilities will mostly go away.
I just don't see it happening.
Most places in the World are not Hong Kong
Notably, every place except for Hong Kong.
Hong Kong is probably a good median representation of where people live.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 12, 2014, 09:36:25 PM
Hong Kong is probably a good median representation of where people live.
Hong Kong is a probably a good representation of where bad people go when they die.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 12, 2014, 10:40:18 PM
Hong Kong is a probably a good representation of where bad people go when they die.
Sounds good to me.