Solar plants are cheaper than fossil fuel plants--will conservative coal huggers please shut up now?? (via @io9.com)

via Instagram http://instagram.com/p/jPaTWAyrgI/

From the io9 post, a Minnesota judge sums up his findings in why a solar-based plan for energy generation in Minnesota should move forward:

"[T]hese proposals offer competitively-priced energy generation; at firm prices; the fewest new environmental impacts; and significant protections against the imposition of project cancellation costs....[I]t bears mentioning that this procurement represents an important turning point in Minnesota's energy resource planning process. Since 1991, Minnesota has had a statutory preference in favor of renewable energy sources. Yet, that preference is overridden when the nonrenewable source has a lower total cost. Notwithstanding the statutory preference, it seemed that nonrenewable energy sources always won the head-to-head cost comparisons. Not anymore. Geronimo entered this bidding process as the sole renewable technology and beat competing offerors on total life-cycle costs."

The fact that the sun is a giant ball of never ending energy that is hurling insane amounts of said energy at us all day long yet all rich energy companies can do is keep digging in the ground (presumably where they hide their heads) tells us that these rich companies have entirely too much power and our politically leaders are entirely corrupt. The fact that we still need to have this conversation in the 21st century is absurd. The sun is a source of essentially limitless energy. Why the fuck do we still let these asshole oil companies tell us where we'll get our energy from? Wars are fought in the Middle East for oil. Terrorism is used to fight corrupt governments in Africa because of oil. So much death and pain, all for oil. All the sun has ever done is cause some skin cancer. Meanwhile, it's thes ource of all life. But no, lets keep digging for oil.

But why do we keep digging for oil? Simple. Our political leaders let it happen. They take money from corporations to keep the old ways going. Well here is proof that the old ways are the wrong ways. At least, when it comes to energy production.

Read the whole io9 post: http://io9.com/why-solar-power-is-more-cost-effective-than-natural-gas-1497305827

Finally, someone else proposes that one size will not fit all in our future energy supply system

How to Decarbonize the U.S. Power Grid

A new proposal by AMO, the thinktank arm of architect Rem Koolhaas’s firm OMA, has a plan to make the United States carbon-neutral by 2050. The plan calls for a shift to renewable energy that takes advantage of U.S. geographic diversity—solar for some areas, hydro for another—in other words, no one-size-fits-all solution. This proposal has been entered into GE’s Powering the Grid Ecomagination Challenge, which is awarding $200 million to the best ideas for a next-generation power grid.

(via Good)

via poptech.tumblr.com

YAY!  It’s like the proposal was designed by ADULTS!!  Rational ones, even!!

COOL!

Um, but I had to snicker during the part of the video where they refer to how we need a “politically agnostic” energy policy.  Yeah, right, like that will happen! 

No, what we need is a ban on lobbyists.  Return the right of free speech to individuals only. No more Chatty Cathy for corporations! (Especially since they’re so good at pulling the strings coming out of their own backs… )

What also worries me about their proposal is the excessive use of biomass.  Doesn’t the creation of biomass energy require a lot of oil-based energy first?  I need to read more about this. I also would have assumed that along the oceans we’d have wind farms. 

Regardless, I applaud their efforts for putting this proposal together.  We all need to grow up and face the reality that there won’t be a single, “one-size fits all” solution to our energy needs.  Oil doesn’t have one replacement, it has many.

I just hope we can make these changes before it’s too late (2050 for Europe? Yikes!)

I think, for that, we will need an Apollo-like program to reach our goal.

Suck on this, Solar Naysayers: Solar is now Cheaper and more Efficient

Solar is now cheaper than nukes:

Solar Power Is Cheaper Than Nuclear for the First Time
by Cameron Scott, 07/29/10
filed under: Renewable Energy, Solar Power

solar power, solar energy, solar technologies, nuclear power, nuclear energy, energy costs, duke university, renewable energy

Here’s bright spot in the news of the day: energy from new solar installations has, for the first time, become cheaper than energy from new nuclear plants, according to a new Duke University study. Thanks to cost-saving technologies and economies of scale, price can no longer be an excuse to invest in nuclear power rather than solar.

Solar power efficiency may double:

Photon enhanced thermionic emission could double efficiency of solar cells
By Laura June posted Aug 3rd 2010 8:25PM

Engineers at Stanford have developed a process which can harness the light and heat of the sun simultaneously, which could lead to solar cells that are twice as efficient as those currently available. Called photon enhanced thermionic emission — or PETE for short — the process differs from traditional cells which lose efficiency as temperatures rise, and the materials needed to build the cells are cheap and widely available.

Heeeey, I should demand a royalty! That’s my name, too!!

Harharhar.

The point here is that solar is making headway.  In fact, this also supports my theory that if we’d only been supporting solar all this time, we’d be even further along on the path to using solar power regularly, even commonly.

But NOOOOO, whiner solar naysayers have to climb up the butts of traditional power companies and cling desperately to old technology, rather than trying innovate.  Essentially, anyone who discourages development of solar energy is anti-innovation.  Any excuse to NOT try to use the power of sun to provide energy for our lives is absurd.  Any problems we’ll run into we’ll surmount.  Simple as that.