I’ve run out of things to keep me entertained recently and as part of a larger project, I was curious if its possible to ‘McGuyver’ up a solar panel out of common materials?

It works, but just.

http://scitoys.com/scitoys/scitoys/echem/echem2.html

Another:
http://nature-log.blogspot.com/2010/01/how-to-make-flat-panel-solar-cell.html

Wingman

If he wants to make the Democrats the party of new forms of energy…cleaner and greener energy, and the Republicans the party of big oil and BP…he would crush them on this issue with the general public. Will he use this to pass green energy reform in the next year? Or will he back off because he fears a fundraising backlash from big oil (just like how he backed off significant health care reform because he was scared of the big insurance companies and their money).

Republicans aren’t "the party of big oil and BP." We also see the need to reach out to different forms of energy. We support oil companies and new drilling because that is our primary energy source right now. We can also research new and alternative energy sources, but why should we crush the main source of energy we have right now?

President Obama will probably back off for right now, but if he actually cares about "cleaner and greener energy," then sometime in the near future he will do something about it.

The only way green energy can break even is if our tax dollars are used to subsidize it.

The only green energy plan he has is to make us pay more money to use existing technology.

Why is he so misleading?

Whether you believe it or not coal and oil reserves will eventually run out.
I’d prefer not to have to go back to candles and horses.

Which is more profitable green or old energy (coal, oil, etc)?

What will make the difference?

Green vs. greenbacks.

It’s a balance we’ve been told we have to accept. But somebody who knows a lot more about making greenbacks than the vast majority of people says it’s not so. Google CEO Eric Schmidt has patiently been telling Google investors not to worry about the company’s massive interest in the US energy grid. Changes have to be made to the way energy gets transported around the country in order for renewable sources of energy to play a larger role, and Google is in on the ground floor, along with IBM, Cisco, GE and others.

But the investors would still like Schmidt to show them the money.

At the WSJ’s ECO:nomics conference in California, Mr. Schmidt was asked how he would respond to Google shareholders who worry the Internet titan is taking its eye off the ball by paying so much attention lately to alternative energy.

"Money we save on energy goes straight to the bottom line. Lower costs mean higher earnings. Green energy done right is more profitable than old energy," Mr. Schmidt said. "Is that a crisp enough answer for you?"

He cited Google’s own multi-trillion dollar blueprint for overhauling the U.S. energy mix. Sure, the pricetag looks hefty–but it would more than pay for itself.

"That’s $3.5 trillion, but over 22 years, not a matter of months," Mr. Schmidt said. "And the benefit would be $4.4 trillion."

But don’t blame the investors for asking — it’s a confusing issue, and one that’s bound to come up very frequently for a while, since President Obama has committed to spending some $4.5 billion on smart grid technology. Schmidt was, of course, a big Obama supporter during the election.

Grist’s David Roberts has a primer (with maps, which we all know I love) on the tangled problem of the national energy grid vs. the "smart grid."

• First, there aren’t many high-voltage lines that go to the places where renewable energy is most abundant (e.g., the Southwest for solar, the Midwest for wind).

• Second, right now there are (depending on how you count) anywhere from three to seven distinct regional grids that make up the national grid, and they aren’t very well connected. While juice circulates relatively freely within these grids, it’s difficult to get juice from one grid to another.

Proactive meaning that expensive energy is our future (wind and solar without dams, nuclear, hydrocarbons) or reactive about cheap energy with irrational fear and emotion over the pollution.

Thankfully he is not reaching for quick fixes like the last Bush did or is he?

Wind power has been tried in Europe. The result is unsightly wind farms full of turbines that broke down constantly and never really generated much power.

Like the wind farm in California the only serve to slaughter migratory birds.

Of course it would make a lot of money for GE, you know the company that owns MSNBC…Obama’s own propaganda channel.

All it would take is about $10-20 a month for 10 years 50% of energy could be produced from clean sources like wind and solar. But human behavior can be persuaded through rules. One of our government’s innovations is compliance standards. Check it out.

http://www.compliance.gov/

You need to lok deeper at the numbers.

Besides - you are talking about a 10-20% increase in energy costs. This translates into a similar increase in costs for businesses. Thses costs will have to be passed on to the consumer - which means 1970’s style ’stagflation.’

Another issue is that althenative energy has a perfect 100% track record of failure in terms of producing energy at a cost the consumer can afford. How much money are you willing to bet on the assumption that history will not repeat itself?

For school i need to do a project about green energy.

I want to know how much of the energy won this day, is green energy.
So maybe a link with a pie-diagram in it? I know i saw it one day, but now i cannot find it anymore.

THanks in advance
this article about renewable energy sources in United States should be helpful to you http://renewableenergyarticles.blogspot.com/2010/01/most-important-renewable-energy-sources.html

Green energy and green jobs are perfect solutions for the economy. Although it will take years and funding, the battle will be well worth it when you can go to a nature preserve and leave only water vapor.

Water vapor is a greenhouse gas.

around here, there’s overcast more often in the morning, than the rest of the day.
in that case, you’d want them to face south, and a little west, to catch more of the afternoon sun.
as to what part of the roof, the part that’s not under a tree.
(i have a nice south facing roof, over my garage, that’s at just the right angle, that’s shaded much of the day by my neighbor’s trees. and he really likes those trees.)

I’m trying to argue that this author (who uses this analogy) is using fallacious reasoning. What are some obvious differences?

The author’s writes the following:
"Just as 20th-century socialists savaged capitalism for all the world’s ills and offered worthless “five-year plans” as a replacement, so today’s environmentalists savage industrial energy and offer us “green energy plans” that they assure us will work–once we give them the power to forbid everything else that has already been proven to work."

Any ideas on disproving this?

First, any such assertion is pretty silly. Our government doesn’t tell us where to live, what we must grow on our farm, and send us to the Gulag if we disagree with them. However:

- We don’t have plans — more like objectives.
- We don’t force actions (generally) we reward success.
- I haven’t seen anyone "assure us" that any plan will work.

Quite clearly, dumping old oil into the creek out back does get rid of it. For us. If it’s a problem for someone down stream, why should we care?

That kind of attitude is quite appropriate for the government to ban. It’s also appropriate to regulate air quality. Look up into your sky, and compare it with this:

http://images.google.com/images?q=china%20pollution