From a technical/efficiency standpoint, it’s hard to imagine solar energy not becoming a significant contributor to our national grid. Unlike conventional energy sources, photovoltaic cells contain no moving parts, produce minimal waste heat, and have no thermodynamic losses from fluids. Of course, they emit no pollution and, operate safely and silently.
Unlike other energy sources, solar cells can be fully integrated into individual buildings throughout urban areas, minimizing transmission losses. As their energy densities rise and production costs fall, solar cells are positioned to become attractive environmental and economic alternatives to traditional sources of domestic power.
Obama announced a three-part funding increase for clean energy at the annual meeting of the National Academy of Sciences in April, 2009:
- The creation of a new research agency (ARPA-E), modeled on the defense-minded DARPA, to research alternative energy sources with a proposed $400 million budget.
- Designating 46 universities and research agencies as ‘Energy Research Frontier Centers,’ and providing them with $777 million in research grants.
- Creating a link (RE-ENERGYSE) between the Department of Energy and the National Science foundation to promote energy careers among students.
In addition to environmental and efficiency benefits, Obama is using green energy as a much-needed injection of skilled positions to help ease strains on domestic employment.
Last May saw over $467 million of federal funding devoted to renewable energy from the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act. The Department of Energy has earmarked $117.6 million dollars of this funding to the research and implementation of new solar technologies. The bulk of this ($51.5 million) will be devoted to photovoltaic technology research.
You discount the cost of this technology as if it isn’t the elephant in the room when talking about emerging alternative energy sources. The extremely high cost of creating and installing photovoltaic cells when compared to the amount of money America invests in developing in this technology emphasizes the fact that we really don’t prioritize its develop–and probably for good reason. I’ll tell you the secret, but shh, most people don’t know about it. It’s called….here it is…nuclear power. Penny for penny, it is the most efficient choice.
What a waste of taxpayer money. It’s a losing bet because if this stuff was viable, the free market would promote it. I know that there are economically viable solar energy sources, because people are using them without government subsidies. When the government, rather than the market, decides to pick winners and losers, it runs the risk of picking the wrong one and crowding the truelly efficient folks out.
My colleagues have said it straight here – solar is a loser. It is many years before we can get the price down to achieve grid parity. However, nuclear could save 800 billion from being sent to the middle east each year as we can pay nuclear engineers in this country to work to produce the required power. See what happens when we let Hollywood tell us all Nuclear is the evil devil? Nuclear is a bit nasty without good management, but with good management France has made it save the day. Imagine that, we are now 30 years behind the French in something. Ouch. Integrity IP