[joe1347]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'h')ttp://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=a-solar-grand-plan
A Solar Grand Plan By 2050 solar power could end U.S. dependence on foreign oil and slash greenhouse gas emissions By Ken Zweibel, James Mason and Vasilis Fthenakis:

A massive switch from coal, oil, natural gas and nuclear power plants to solar power plants could supply 69 percent of the U.S.’s electricity and 35 percent of its total energy by 2050.
A vast area of photovoltaic cells would have to be erected in the Southwest. Excess daytime energy would be stored as compressed air in underground caverns to be tapped during nighttime hours.

Large solar concentrator power plants would be built as well.
A new direct-current power transmission backbone would deliver solar electricity across the country. But $420 billion in subsidies from 2011 to 2050 would be required to fund the infrastructure and make it cost-competitive.

[rdsaltpower]

As dreamers do!

[Cobra_Strike]

The mainstream media will not pick this up in a meaningful way, it goes away from the centralized power generation that makes the bottom line...

[Oil-Finder]

How can you say the mainstream media has not picked up on this when there's a front cover article on it in Scientific American? If I'm not mistaken, SciAm is the most widely-circulated science magazine in the country.

[steam_cannon]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Oil-Finder', 'H')ow can you say the mainstream media has not picked up on this when there's a front cover article on it in Scientific American? If I'm not mistaken, SciAm is the most widely-circulated science magazine in the country.

[Oil-Finder]

^
Well if you ask me, SciAm is about as mainstream as you can get.

[eastbay]

Only $420 billion???

No way. Never happen. Americans would much rather invest that kind of money in idiotic oil wars instead.

[GreyGhost]

The scientific community likes to think in terms of 50 year time spans, because it's fun. And they know (and don't care that much) that politicians never will think beyond the nect four-year election cycle.

The trick is to gradually make these sort of ideas become part of the common knowledge so that it becomes more acceptable for it it be voted in.

[joe1347]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('GreyGhost', 'T')he scientific community likes to think in terms of 50 year time spans, because it's fun. And they know (and don't care that much) that politicians never will think beyond the nect four-year election cycle.

The trick is to gradually make these sort of ideas become part of the common knowledge so that it becomes more acceptable for it it be voted in.

[vision-master]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('joe1347', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=a-solar-grand-plan

A Solar Grand Plan

By 2050 solar power could end U.S. dependence on foreign oil and slash greenhouse gas emissions

By Ken Zweibel, James Mason and Vasilis Fthenakis

A massive switch from coal, oil, natural gas and nuclear power plants to solar power plants could supply 69 percent of the U.S.’s electricity and 35 percent of its total energy by 2050.

A vast area of photovoltaic cells would have to be erected in the Southwest. Excess daytime energy would be stored as compressed air in underground caverns to be tapped during nighttime hours.

Large solar concentrator power plants would be built as well.
A new direct-current power transmission backbone would deliver solar electricity across the country.

But $420 billion in subsidies from 2011 to 2050 would be required to fund the infrastructure and make it cost-competitive.

[SILENTTODD]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('eastbay', 'O')nly $420 billion???

No way. Never happen. Americans would much rather invest that kind of money in idiotic oil wars instead.

[Twilight]

The problem is there may be no window of opportunity.

At present it is affordable but not required as other energy sources are adequate.

The future is likely to bring almighty demand destruction and declines in tax revenue that make $420bn of subsidies unattainable.

So how do you sell it? It won't fly now, it probably won't fly when it is needed. Catch-22.

[Loki]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('SILENTTODD', 'I') have seen figures now that say the total cost of the Iraq fiasco will be 1 Trillion (1000 billion) dollars. And that’s only if W’s IQ suddenly increased 50 points and we pulled out in the next 90 days!

[Loki]

Just finished reading the original article. An interesting plan. We definitely need something like it. But I have two major problems with it.

First, they say NOTHING about conservation. That's criminal. Conservation should be our first and foremost priority. That means reducing per capita use AND reducing population growth (easily achieved by simply ending mass immigration). Their plan includes a 1 percent annual increase in demand (70 year doubling rate), which I suppose gives it some wiggle room. But to completely ignore conservation, by far the most cost-effective way to "generate" energy, is absurd.

Second, they seriously minimize the environmental impact of their plan. They describe Southwestern ecosystems as "barren" with "no competing use value." I grew up in the Sonoran desert, and I can say with certainty that it's not "barren." It's profoundly ignorant to characterize it as such, and speaks to the authors' sloppy research / anti-environmental bias. I made a map (below) to show what 46,000 square miles look like, the area they figure we would need to cover with solar panels by 2050 in order to implement their plan.

The authors strike me as engineer types, "green" cornucopians who think we can and should build our way out of the impending energy crisis. I don't deny that there is a place for this mindset, but to utterly ignore conservation and to discount the environmental impact of effectively paving 46,000 square miles is irresponsible at best. I'm not familiar with compressed air or molten salt technology, so I can't comment on them, but their plan seems to hinge on these mostly untested techniques of storing solar energy (just more vaporware?).

I fully support solar energy development and subsidies, and SciAm presents an interesting plan to help achieve that, but one with some serious flaws. I would have told these authors/editors to revise and resubmit.

[Nano]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Loki', 'F')reaking ridiculous. American democracy in action.

[...]
Scientists can point out the obvious until they're blue in the face, it won't matter as long as our political class is beholden to Big Business and a willfully ignorant electorate.

[cube]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('steam_cannon', '.')... Scientific American has a great deal of legitimacy and credibility, but those just aren't mainstream concepts. ...

[Nano]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Loki', 'B')ut to completely ignore conservation, by far the most cost-effective way to "generate" energy, is absurd.

[sicophiliac]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('cube', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('steam_cannon', '.')... Scientific American has a great deal of legitimacy and credibility, but those just aren't mainstream concepts. ...

[cube]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('sicophiliac', '.')...
Well considering the name "Popular" mechanics what a surprise that it would promote facinating and cutting edge technology that intellectually curious people might just be interested in reading about?
....

[Nano]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('cube', 'I')t is an insult to Scientists who do *serious proof in the Laboratory* to lump this entertainment magazine as science. This is an entertainment magazine not a science journal. Furthermore (no insult to anybody) I consider it a bit "naive" to start doing jumping jacks and taking something to be true just because it's printed in a magazine. Call me harsh but until something gets put through "trial by fire" it doesn't cut the mustard.