91–100 of 290 posts
I'm curious if anyone has stats on what percentage of houses have an unobstructed southern roof (for those in the Northern hemisphere)? My house has seasonally adjusted nanotechnology self-replicating shade "panels" that block considerable sunlight in the spring and summer months (MTBF: 100+ years). The big downside is cleaning up the unused panels in the autumn.
You forgot to say "carbon-based".
I'm curious if anyone has stats on what percentage of houses have an unobstructed southern roof (for those in the Northern hemisphere)? My house has seasonally adjusted nanotechnology self-replicating shade "panels" that block considerable sunlight in the spring and summer months (MTBF: 100+ years). The big downside is cleaning up the unused panels in the autumn.
You mean vines?
I'm sure i'm not the only one who feels like this is possibly the iphone moment of Solarcity/Tesla: an old-ish idea, made sexy and tasty to consumers, together with technology reaching a tipping point(and also Musk again finding a way to maximally exploit government subsidies for clean tech.) The tesla car itself could count as well, but felt less "design driven" imo. If this fails, everyone will call it obviously du…
Another side note: it always annoys me when people insinuate that Musk using government funds is a bad thing. The government is literally just US....it's our money and a collection of individuals from among us who we've appointed to handle the general administration of us and the space we take up. Why should American entrepreneurs, particularly ones doing such an outstanding job of moving technology in a positive dir…
I think the primary problem of government funding is waste and the potential for corruption. Waste because the government is more immune to profit motive and thus can throw good money after bad for a long time. Corruption because you need to convince some bureaucrats v. all your customers (or whoever the market needs). The flip side is that, done well, you can get things done that no business could get done on its own.
So, if Tesla/cleantech succeeds, nobody will remember government funding as some sort of attenuation or 'asterisk' on the win: it was getting the industry over a hump, but into self-sustaining success. Win all around. The problem is if the government support ends up propping up business models that have no hope of actually being viable when that support goes away.
If cleantech ends up failing, then the government backing that which couldn't succeed in the free market will be remembered. But it's all a tradeoff: we're not going to be perfect every time and should be prepared to accept some misses if we think bootstrap government funding of promising but currently non-viable products is a worthy allocation of taxpayer money.
EDIT: sibling comment has great additional point about market distortion being a problem too.
Side topic, but I wonder if there's a pivot point coming where household appliances could be offered in DC versions. It would be great to avoid the inverter efficiency loss / point of failure. Could there be a standard DC interior wiring system with line voltage for the fridge / dishwasher / laundry machines and let's say LED lights, phone chargers, etc? The need for AC power is just an artifact of long transmission…
That's brilliant. It fixes that huge objection we all have to solar on our houses - and it is not the product itself but that it is a innovative solution to a problem "everyone" has looked at and said "nah I don't want that rubbish on my roof" and nearly turned it on its head It's just one more example of why discounting Elon might be a bad idea. If only I had bought tesla a few years ago ...
> "nah I don't want that rubbish on my roof" Why not? What on earth are you doing up there that this is such a problem. My roof is an open, unused space over the house. I will be looking into putting solar panels up there in a few years.
I'm sure i'm not the only one who feels like this is possibly the iphone moment of Solarcity/Tesla: an old-ish idea, made sexy and tasty to consumers, together with technology reaching a tipping point(and also Musk again finding a way to maximally exploit government subsidies for clean tech.) The tesla car itself could count as well, but felt less "design driven" imo. If this fails, everyone will call it obviously du…
Another side note: it always annoys me when people insinuate that Musk using government funds is a bad thing. The government is literally just US....it's our money and a collection of individuals from among us who we've appointed to handle the general administration of us and the space we take up. Why should American entrepreneurs, particularly ones doing such an outstanding job of moving technology in a positive dir…
It's easy to look at Tesla and SpaceX and see a couple winning tickets in the "give money for technology" lottery, but they are not the only tickets our government has purchased. Consider all the other entrepreneurs who are doing an outstanding job of not so much moving technology in any direction at all but rather lining their pockets while cratering their industry's reputation, or those that make reasonable attempts with interesting but ultimately impractical innovations.
The people who object are generally objecting to the playing of the lottery itself. The most commonly proposed alternative is that these companies should earn the money by providing value in the market or convince investors (who have powerful financial incentives to get it right) that they can do so, rather than by convincing a relatively few laypeople with no real skin in the game to risk other people's money on them.
Pre-emptive disclaimer: yes, I know I've not mentioned any of the opposing arguments here. My purpose in writing this is solely to explain some of the key points (including some of the emotional appeals) in this particular side of this particular debate.
I'm sure i'm not the only one who feels like this is possibly the iphone moment of Solarcity/Tesla: an old-ish idea, made sexy and tasty to consumers, together with technology reaching a tipping point(and also Musk again finding a way to maximally exploit government subsidies for clean tech.) The tesla car itself could count as well, but felt less "design driven" imo. If this fails, everyone will call it obviously du…
From a popular perspective - you are maybe right - they 'sexified' something not quite so sexy. However - I suggest this won't work out like the iPhone. Why? Because --> 'new roofs' are not built that often, by that I mean new homes and roofing replacements. And the construction industry has totally different dynamics. Putting on a 'regular' new roof is expensive. Most people won't consider this tech unless their hom…
One thing where I don't agree:roofs being an unemotional decision. Everything is influenced by emotions. All Solarcity has to do isb make it at least feasible for everyone price wise, then having the combination of the (apparently very fancy) French something style+the feeling you are a part of the solution for the planet+the tesla allure will do the rest for a suitable percentage of the market. That is iff the numbers work out enough to not make it an unreasonable choice.
The iphone would have failed at 1500 say. But 500 was barely cheap enough for what people got and felt they got to be worth it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Don't forget that rooftop solar panels reduce HVAC cooling needs in summer, and I would bet they also slash blackbody radiation, reducing the greenhouse problem. Absorbing the light ought to be as good as reflecting it. a 93-square-metre (1,000 sq ft) white roof will offset 10 tons of carbon dioxide over its 20-year lifetime. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reflective_surfaces_(geoengine...
Except, unless you are powering a laser pointed offworld, most of that energy is going to end up in your local environment as heat. Or, you meant just your house's greenhouse problem? Running a heat pump or AC would do that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Don't forget that rooftop solar panels reduce HVAC cooling needs in summer, and I would bet they also slash blackbody radiation, reducing the greenhouse problem. Absorbing the light ought to be as good as reflecting it. a 93-square-metre (1,000 sq ft) white roof will offset 10 tons of carbon dioxide over its 20-year lifetime. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reflective_surfaces_(geoengine...
Except, unless you are powering a laser pointed offworld, most of that energy is going to end up in your local environment as heat. Or, you meant just your house's greenhouse problem? Running a heat pump or AC would do that.
Note to HN posters: do not dare criticize Pope Musk or any of his Holy Products, lest you risk a million down votes. FYI - I'm not a building expert, but I come from a large family of builders and grew up in a hardware store / lumber yard. I also looked into getting solar roofing (fleetingly) for a family friend. At least three years ago - the costs were nowhere near manageable for Ontario homes. So we'll see how thi…
You look to have been downvoted probably one time. I suggest you delete this comment while you still can. The other comment has only been up for 15 minutes. There is still plenty of time for someone else to decide to upvote it for some reason.
I could care less about my 'HN karma' -> it's meaningless to me. I made the comment purely in jest.