The Truth About Solar Energy Systems

Solar Energy Systems are a reality today.

Believe it or not, the unit shown in the image as been providing cost effective electricity by powering a U.S. Air Force base in the desert (I believe New Mexico).

The problem is, unless you stay up late at night like I do watching the Science channel you probably never heard of the company or system I am about to write about.

Let me explain...

The Need for Alternative Solar Energy Systems

As I sit here writing this article oil continues to spill in the gulf from BP's failed deep sea drilling platform.

Clearly anyone can see the environmental hazards of relying on 100 year old technology (oil and gas) moving us forward into the 21st century.

What are (or should be) the requirements for EFFECTIVE "Alternative" Energy Systems?

In a nutshell, any effective system should be...

1. modular
2. simple
3. proven
4. ecologically sound

Let me explain each point one at a time.

1. Modular

Henry Ford revolutionized the auto industry by implementing the "assembly line." The idea was to automate and simplify the manufacturing process, which allowed for:

1. lower overall production costs
2. lower sales prices
3. solid profit margins

That meant more products in the hands of more people. What's more, standardization allowed for the ability to swap parts between vehicles.

Take a flywheel out of car A and you can install it in car B and it works just fine. And now you can establish a supply chain and "parts depots" allowing a fleet of cars manufactured in different plants at different times on the road.

The opposite of "modular" would be "custom" or "over-engineered." Custom solutions are inefficient. Think expensive.

If you can't mass produce a solution quickly and inexpensively, you will not have a workable substitute to our energy needs.

2. Simple

The holy grail of alternative energy is simplicity.

• simple to build
• simple to implement
• simple to maintain

Why?

One factor is cost. For years we've been fed the myth that alternative fuel was more expensive than coal or oil.

It was good for the economy, we were told, to continue relying on energy sources from the past.

Jobs and infrastructure were all geared around continued reliance on older "proven" energy sources.

In order to replace coal and oil, it's not enough to simply apply a "band aid" approach to energy management.

To create something viable and lasting, simplicity will be an essential ingredient of any energy solution moving forward.

3. Proven Technology

We simply don't have 30 years of testing are R&D before we implement system to replace oil, coal and gas.

We don't.

I've watched shows where scientist are trying to harness fusion (nuclear rectors are based on fission) as a means of generating electricity.

That's at least 50 years out. Or more if we're lucky.

And what's worse, it is an expensive gamble.

You're talking about a LOT of money spent trying to get something to maybe work that could literally take dozens of years to perfect.

If at all.

Now, whether you believe in global warming, shrinking ice caps and rising sea levels (or not), one point is clear... we have all the tools and technology we need right now to get out of this mess.

The only reason we haven't implemented proven technology today is because of a LOT of vested interests from big money players.

Look, the point I'm trying to make is a simple one.

We don't need new technology at this time. We need to implement stuff that works right now to supplement and finally replace our reliance on oil and coal.

'Nough said.

4. Ecologically Sound

Some politicians will invoke nuclear power plants as a "clean" energy source.

Are you kidding me?

How about Chernobyl or Three Mile Island? Not to mention the toxic waste that no one wants dumped in "their back yard" with radioactive half-lives in the thousands of years.

That's backward thinking, not forward thinking.

Now, just because I'm stressing the need to take action today to save future generations, don't confuse the need to quickly implement new energy sources with short-term thinking.

For example, producing millions of toxic batteries for "electric" cars is hardly a viable solution, since those batteries are just going to end up in land-fills causing pollution problems down the road.

Let's not prevent one ecological disaster by fostering another. How would that help?

To my mind, these four principles must form the foundation for a comprehensive and viable "alternative" energy policy.