solar cheaper as oil or gas.

[HUGH]

A scheme, already marketed by a British company, extracts hydrogen from water on wind-turbine sites and this is stored, or piped to elsewhere for reconversion to heat or electricity when required. No ugly, expensive cables and can be used for major solar panel sites as well.
Pipelines themselves can be included in the storage system and clean water recovered in the process.

[K0RGR]

That was actually a system that was tested for fueling hydrogen vehicles. As long as you can supply water and sunlight, the little power plant would convert the water to hydrogen and oxygen, storing the hydrogen for the next vehicle that needs refueling...

[ka4dpo]

I see the United States making good progress in alternative energy. There are hundreds of thousands of wind generators across the country and huge solar electric plants in Arizona and Nevada. It is currently not cost effective to try and run an average home on solar power alone. Solar panels are expensive and suitable storage batteries are large, expensive, and also not very efficient. It will get better, it always does and as battery technology improves there will be more and more reliance on solar power as an adjunct to current electrical utilities.

Right now in the sun belt states it is possible to put enough solar panels on the average home to generate sufficient power to run an air conditioner during most the day. This saves a lot in utility bills but given the cost of the solar panels takes a long time to amortize. As it is now Coal, Gas, and Nuclear are the only sources of power that operate day and night, rain or shine, and not dependent on wind. Our only other reliable energy sources are hydro-electric and geo-thermal.

I do see a lot of development on hydrogen fuel cells for automobiles and that is going to be a reality in the very near future. Perhaps that same technology will spin off for home use. Whatever technology leads the way it's a cinch that fossil fuels are on the way out but it is going to take time even if a new energy source was found tomorrow you can't just dump your car in the junkyard and go buy a new one. The transition will take years and will be market driven with the consumer in the drivers seat of change.

[n2ize]

I see the United States making good progress in alternative energy. There are hundreds of thousands of wind generators across the country and huge solar electric plants in Arizona and Nevada. It is currently not cost effective to try and run an average home on solar power alone. Solar panels are expensive and suitable storage batteries are large, expensive, and also not very efficient. It will get better, it always does and as battery technology improves there will be more and more reliance on solar power as an adjunct to current electrical utilities.

Right now in the sun belt states it is possible to put enough solar panels on the average home to generate sufficient power to run an air conditioner during most the day. This saves a lot in utility bills but given the cost of the solar panels takes a long time to amortize. As it is now Coal, Gas, and Nuclear are the only sources of power that operate day and night, rain or shine, and not dependent on wind. Our only other reliable energy sources are hydro-electric and geo-thermal.

I do see a lot of development on hydrogen fuel cells for automobiles and that is going to be a reality in the very near future. Perhaps that same technology will spin off for home use. Whatever technology leads the way it's a cinch that fossil fuels are on the way out but it is going to take time even if a new energy source was found tomorrow you can't just dump your car in the junkyard and go buy a new one. The transition will take years and will be market driven with the consumer in the drivers seat of change.

We already have a great source of alternative green energy. Nuclear power.

[PA5COR]

Tell that the people of Fukushima and Chernobyl and some other places.....

[kb2vxa]

"As it is now Coal, Gas, and Nuclear are the only sources of power that operate day and night, rain or shine, and not dependent on wind."

You forgot to include hydro, but the greenies in their infinite wisdom have put a stop to new construction and development of existing generators as they have done to nuclear. For what it's worth(less) the latest developments in nuclear technology have made it perfectly safe provided plants are constructed in safe locations. The irony of it all, hydro is "green electricity" but the greenies block it.

I now refer you to my sig line, Oyster Creek Nuclear was entirely unaffected by hurricane Sandy but I took the gas with me to the evacuation shelter so it wouldn't contribute to the fires a bit south of here.

[ka4dpo]

"As it is now Coal, Gas, and Nuclear are the only sources of power that operate day and night, rain or shine, and not dependent on wind."

You forgot to include hydro, but the greenies in their infinite wisdom have put a stop to new construction and development of existing generators as they have done to nuclear. For what it's worth(less) the latest developments in nuclear technology have made it perfectly safe provided plants are constructed in safe locations. The irony of it all, hydro is "green electricity" but the greenies block it.

I now refer you to my sig line, Oyster Creek Nuclear was entirely unaffected by hurricane Sandy but I took the gas with me to the evacuation shelter so it wouldn't contribute to the fires a bit south of here.

Well I actually did mention Hydro and Geo-thermal in the next sentence but I agree with you that hydro-electric is the most reliable totally green energy source we have. You would think they could figure that out.

[K0RGR]

Here's just one of many examples from MINNESOTA - http://mnrenewables.org/node/1571

Now, if your alternative energy system works here in the frozen tundra, where sunlight is restricted much of the year, it should work about anywhere. That house claims to be 100% solar powered electric, and I know at least two people close by here who make the same claim. One has solar electricity and uses a heat exchanger system to heat and cool his house at a fraction of what it costs the rest of us.

Here's another one from even deeper in the frozen north - http://mnrenewables.org/node/1591 I like their statement that payback was '23 seconds' because it would have cost three times as much to get electricity hooked up there.

I think there's more afoot here than the basic ROI calculation. Independence is worth something, too. Not having to worry about the power lines going down would be nice, even here in a suburban setting. And now, I think the ROI is looking better all the time. The cost of PV panels has plummeted.

[PA5COR]

I can answer that quick.

Alaska gets the same amount of sunshine as Germany, and Germany is leading the world in solar energy making.

https://joinmosaic.com/blog/keys-responsible-investing/

[PA5COR]

The typical citizen initially may have difficulty putting Fairbanks’ solar irradiation level of 3.4 kWh/m²/day into perspective. For comparison, in Germany, where there are more installed solar panels per capita than anywhere else in the world, the level averages only 3.0 kWh/m²/day. The United States is blessed with much better irradiation, as the annual amount is linked more closely to weather patterns than geographic latitude.

At similar latitudes, sunny Phoenix receives 6.6, but Atlanta only 4.8. Seattle gets 3.3, but Bismarck, North Dakota scores 4.7. In Alaska, clearer weather accounts for Fairbanks at 3.4 beating Anchorage at 3.1. Bethel, at 3.8, outshines most of the state, while Juneau, with the most southernly location but persistent clouds, averages only 2.6. (All of this data is from the US Department of Energy). As you can see, solar potential is location specific, but most of Alaska receives enough irradiation for solar to be a viable energy source; even more so than in world-leading Germany.