Solar Powered Fools

So Toyota is planning a solar powered car. Can I turn it down now?

Why you may ask? Because solar technology, as everyone is crazy (and I mean that in the certifiably sense) is a limited technology. Think about it. Solar power requires two things: 1) solar panels that will probably become relatively cheap, just like any other electronic item and 2) the sun shining. (Can you spot the problem?) So what happens if you live in the middle of the woods in a Northern state? Can you say, "We don't get much sun?"

While the sun may shine, I haven't heard much talk about snow prevention. You know, if you install these suckers on the roof, how do you keep them clear of snow? Cause frankly, we get a helluva lot more snow than we get sunshine. Or, what do you do if you live in a city like Seattle or London, cities known for their crappy weather?

See, that is where the solar zealots have made a mistake. Who generates their own electricity now? Eh, not very many. So why are we trying to DISPERSE solar panels? Think about it. Wouldn't it be easier, cheaper, and more efficient to build these suckers in the Sahara or other desert, places where it is almost always sunny no one lives? Wouldn't that allow for "solar farming?"

You see, there is nothing wrong with people have solar cells. But, what is the main obstacle? THEY ARE EXPENSIVE! But, think about it. Won't the price come down if electric companies were building huge, solar farms? As Adam Smith described in the Wealth of Nations, a growing market allows for specialization and economies of scale. Think about electronic products. For example, when HDTVs first came out a few years back, they were small and very, VERY expensive. But now, you can get a reasonable size TV for a few hundred bucks, not much more than a similar sized old-fashioned TV. Why wouldn't solar panels follow the same product life cycle? By having large farms creating a large demand for these panels, suppliers would be able to sell more and more, allowing for both the economies of scale in use in other electronics as well as having an opportunity to keep improving their production methods, lowering the cost of the panels. (Again, just like HDTVs.)

Taking a focus on lowering the cost of these panels to final consumers seems to be a smarter move than trying to get people to spend considerable amounts for these things. So the question remains, why are solar panels different from HDTVs? And, there is only one reasonable answer: because it is a "green" technology, treated the same way by the Religion of the Environment as rosaries are by Catholics. (Rosaries are a heckuva lot cheaper though!) Without religious extremism behind solar energy, solar panels would follow the same life cycle. Those that lived in sunny areas and used tons of energy would buy first (think celebs in southern Cali) and as they bought, manufacturing techniques would be refined, lowering the price and allowing solar energy to be cost effective for more people, and repeating.



So, you should be asking, "What makes me think I know best in this scenario?" But, you have to realize, I am not discussing manufacturing, where to place the line and how to build the things. Instead, I am simply doing what Algore and his cronies are doing, focusing on the marketing and political aspect. Those that back solar power make leaps of logic that aren't supported and it is not that much of a stretch for me to point those out. I am not saying these farms ARE better; I am saying these farms SEEM better, simply based on prior electronics. Could their solution turn out to be more effective? Maybe, but they require government interference. My solution eliminates the government, eliminates forcefully requiring people to go against their wishes, and focuses on CONVINCING people to adopt this technology ONLY IF it is in their best interests. For some, a price decrease as I am predicting through my solution would make solar cost-effective. For some people, like those living in Minnesota and upstate New York with tons of snow, solar power will never be cost-effective, but maybe something else will. Here's the kicker. My solution doesn't require people to waste money on solar power and instead spend that money on a solution that works for them.

Without government force, the most cost-effective solution(s) will be adopted, individually. Those that work, that provide savings, will be kept. Those that require government forcing people to use it need to be eliminated BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT AS GOOD! People will choose what is best for them; simple human nature. With my solution, there is no going against human nature. But using religion and force to convince people? That was tried before in the Spanish Inquisition. Why should it work now?



For more information about solar power and farms, check out the Wikipedia link.