Just to one up you a bit, and I believe this is Nader's idea...But why not have these "farms" conveniently cover the parking lots of southern California, Arizona, and New Mexico?

This way you also get to shield the cars from the harmfull effects of the sun. This would keep individual cars cooler, and provide for a small reduction in personal A/C.

Mall owners could benefit by having the energy directly cool their own stores.

Let's go one step further, and use solar tiles on all the roofs in the sun belt on all new construction, and do away with dirty power generation altogether. That would generate extra capacity to power those in the northern climes that don't have year-long sunshine. Such tiles already exist, and are becoming cheaper by the day.

Indeed, all new builds or roof replacements should be subsidized by tax benefit to be a better deal with solar tiles... and excess power can be sold back to the grid. If all re-roofing shifted to solar panels from now on, how many years before 99% of the population have solar roofs. If all houses had solar-electric and water heat generating roofs, how much heat is that. Does it not also help to assess the heat rating of houses and charge property tax rates based on the energy "footprint". It seems that shifting the energy paradigm is a whole-market reorganization.

we are 5x away in cost for solar farms to be viable vs other less clean options. unclear that the current methods will get there so look for emerging organic solar cells to get us there in the next 5 years.

on-building systems are about 2-3x from being viable without tax incentives so you will see more and more of these first.

Current solar cells take more energy to make than they deliver over their lifetime.

However they are working on a titanium-oxide solar cell that might break that limit.

What we need is a solar cell material that can be painted on structures - paint the electrodes too. It could be very inefficient and still work.

Also, there is this idea that deserts are wastelands that can be used in a way that other lands - like forest - can't. But deserts contain a lot of unique and necessary species that also need protection. I think a Solar array farm the size of Vegas would have trouble satisfying it's Environmental Impact requirments.

I'm about as Green Energy as they get, and I think this is a bad idea. Solar panels, its true, have a high energy cost of manufacturing. The 'idea' is great - make energy from the sun, but the reality is, its really hard to turn radiation into electricity, the light hitting isn't very dense, and it only shines half the day.Mechanical energy is really EASY to convert to electricity, and the technology is simple. Wind power, tidal power, even dam-free hydro power are all great ways to makes LOTS of green energy. With a very small tax credit, Wind power is now CHEAPER than coal or gas power. Tell your representative to give wind farmers the one cent tax break they need!

Remember, wind power is still solar power. The atmosphere has just done the work of concentrating the power for us. The state of North Dakota alone has enough reliable wind to supply ALL of North America's electrical demand, using exsisting technology.

This may be obvious, but of course we should not put all of our solar cells in one location. What if it was a cloudy day in southern Nevada? Or there was some malfunction? Also, you cannot light Chicago or New York from Nevada. Energy is lost over long distances(though this is being remedied somewhat with the just-emerging superconducting power lines.) I also agree with Cranor about blighting a landscape the size of Las Vegas.

As to bth7's comment, well everything is cheaper with a subsidy. I agree that wind etc is more efficient than the present generation of solar. But the question is where a subsidy should go. I do not think that too much subsidy should be directed toward paying for the proliferation of inefficient technologies. Alternative energy sources will only be a success when they are MORE EFFICIENT than fossil fuels, which they have the inherent capability to be. Then and only then will industry wholeheartedly embrace alternative energy sources and the Kyoto protocal and all fossil fuel regulation will then become hopelessly obsolete.

Therefore, I believe that subsidies should be directed toward developing new technologies that will make alternative energy practical, rather than symbolic splurging on what are still essentially inefficient prototypes.

See my idea 'Kyoto Alternative' in the Environment section for a fuller explication of such a research program.

solar roofing tiles are the way. I agree, just your idearequires changing something about how we pave.

Why not simply change the architecture of "shingles" and"flat roof slates" to incprorate photovoltaic cells... thenevery roof will generate electricity... los angeleswill generate its own.

Give a tax subsidy to re-roof only with solar slates (makingthem cheapter tnan non-solar) and voila!

Micropower generation legislation needs to be in place sothat a private home that sells excess ot the grid canearn its fair share of power generation revenues.

I believe that the most efficient method of exploiting the sun for energy will be found to be through the growth of biomass for fermentation to ethanol. The ethanol may be burned directly or cracked into hydrogen. The hydrogen may be burned diirectly or run through a fuel cell. The added bonus of running it through a fuel cell is clean water.

How about we couple this idea with the development of a rechargeable "light battery" that can store the photonic energy for later power conversion or distant release to an area that may not have that intensity of sunlight?

If we could develop this in a way that is more efficient to store light in it's most direct form than converting immediately then perhaps the economics become even more attractive as you could increase the source reliability.

This is a popular idea for all, but needs to be shot down. Sorry. I would like someone to come up with a new way of explaining to the masses that photovoltaics increase emisions due to the energy and pollutants used in production.

I hope that someday someone will come up with a viable solution. Solar cells are viable only for portable and remote applications where the cost and emisions of alternatives are highest.

With respect to Kyoto; don't ratify. The protocol is another Euro/French scam that will only make matters worse. Just like the common agricultural policy, it is a rent seeking project designed to enrich the european coal industry, at the expense of everyone else. You see they have heavily subsidised coal industries that are not viable. They wish to be paid to close them down. Kyoto will give them carbon rights wich they can sell. That's right they will make money from thier history of pollution. The polluter should pay, not get payed. This is like trying to stop rape by enforcing a quota on rapes, and then allotting rapeing rights to existing rapists, which they can sell on the open market. Furthermore, it will make matters worse because most counties are exempt. These countries just happen to be the ones that have growing fossil fuel industries rather than declineing and unviable ones. They also happen to have the least environmental regulation, and the dirtiest and most inneficient coal deposits. Americans and Australians (with the cleanest and most efficient coals) will export their production to China and reimport it via the goods trade. They will ship coal to exempt countries, and the goods produced will be shipped back. This shipping will further increase emissions. What a joke! The French are proved experts at cloaking their rent seeking with altruism. Better alternatives were proposed, but were shot down by the europeans. Think critically people, don't just accept things on face value. This is what scammers feed on.

The answer lies in Nanotechnology. There is already a company (Nanosys) working on technology that will allow "paint-on" solar cells for your roof. This has the potential for being extremely cost effect and easy to use and apply. I would rather see our government continue to fund leading-edge research in nano then subsidize sub-standard, half-solutions like wind farms.

BTW, does anyone think wind farms don't effect the enviroment? They are essentially like water dams, creating a big lake of windlessness behind them. Put enough up to be useful and you have a big impact.

http://www.technologyreview.com/articles/fairley0704.asp

06/24/04-->>>>The latest developments in solar cells, a Nanotech breakthrough that could help avert the world's impending energy crisis. Researchers at Konarka Technologies are using the latest breakthroughs in nanotechnology to produce bright orange strips of plastic - printable solar cells -- that could solve one of the world's most troubling problems: how to create a ready and renewable supply of energy.<<<<

http://www.konarkatech.com

I have heard this rumor that photovoltaics use more energy to produce than they generate in a lifetime, but I have never seen it from a reliable source. It seems similar to the claim that ethanol has the same problem, which can be true in some cases, but not in others. Without specifics on the manufacture processes involved and the assumed conditions under which the photovoltaic cell would operate, I can not know if such a claim is real or just a myth that may have grown out of a misleading or otherwise erroneous research project. If I do not hear back from those who have made this claim, I will have to assume the latter. I hope to hear from them, because people do need to know if photovoltaics are truly undeserving of their green reputation.

"There is a common but mistaken notion that solar cells never produce more energy than it takes to make them. While the expected working lifetime is around 40 years, the energy payback time of a solar panel is anywhere from 1 to 30 years (usually under five) depending on the type and where it is used (see net energy gain). This means solar cells are net energy producers and can "reproduce" themselves (from 6 to more than 30 times) over their lifetime. "- Wikipedia article on solar cells. Evidence to the contrary is welcome, but until then, I will still consider producing solar cells a good thing.

Do not be discouraged. There exist more efficient technologies for harvesting solar energy, which concentrate sunlight to heat oil or molten salt, which can then transfer its heat to water to power a steam turbine. The following information comes mostly from the Wikipedia article "Solar Thermal Energy," where more information can be found. I hope what you learn will please you as much as it has me.There are many types of solar thermal energy systems in development by several organizaitons:1. Power Towers, which use fields of heliostats (sun-tracking mirrors) to concentrate light onto a tank at the top of a tall tower, where liquid is heated. Two test plants, called Solar One and Solar Two, have been constructed in California, and an inproved design is being built in Spain to be used commercially, called Solar Tres. A 100MegaWatt plant is being planned for construction in South Africa.2. Parabolic trough systems, which use curved troughs to reflect sunlight onto a hollow tube running above the trough and heat the liquid being pumped through. These systems are the the most successful and cost-effective so-far. Fields consist of many rows of these troughs. The largest operational solar energy system, SEGS, uses parabolic troughs to generate 330MW.3. Parabolic Dish systems, which use large reflective parabolic dishes to concentrate light on a Stirling engine (which converts heat into mechanical energy for a generator to harness). The dishes look like satellite dishes. Southern California Edison announced last year that it plans to purchase 20,000 Stirling engines over the next 20 years to use for solar dish systems, which sould generate 500MW. I have personally heard reports of solar dished acheiving more than 99% efficiency.Alas, there is more, but you get the idea. This is the closest thing to a solar plantation I know of or can see.