So, tell me again, why hasn't solar power "taken off"?

[SpiritWarrior]

So, I was driving to the city the other day via an alternative route and noticed a solar panel attached to a traffic-light pole that was located in "the middle of nowhere" with miles of fields on each side. I thought to myself, "Isn't that nifty?" and guessed that the lights were fully powered by this panel which stores up the energy and keeps it as a reserve for future use. This particular set of lights wouldn't see heavy use since you'd see maybe 2 cars per hour coming through.

So unless I am mistaken, you have a virtual "free" traffic light in operation there. Now, why aren't we seeing alot more of this? Sure the panel would cost some money, but in the long-run a self-renewable power source beats everything face down. Limited (or no) power consumption, lack of emissions and far less money. I do not know the science of it, I may be totally ignorant as to why there aren't solar panels everywhere, storing up energy.

I also don't know how easily this energy can be transoported either, but I am guessing it isn't an issue in this day and age as the technology has advanced. Plus, I know that it can be transported short distances at least as I have seen it. And as I looked at the miles of free land around me as I was driving through, I thought this would be a pretty good spot for many giant solar panels to be placed, just soaking up the rays and storing energy. This is simply my pedestrian view of it all so I am unsure. Is there a good reason as to why this isn't so? Or is it the same issue we face with healthcare except in this case it's all about the oil and electricity companies staying in business? I have also heard that these companies play down solar energy as a practical power source, citing problems and flaws that don't exist (similiar to what is done with the health industry).

[Kyrvias]

I would think that it would be an economy issue. By that, I mean short term, not long term. Like you said, switching to Solar Energy would create a *lot* of jobless people. Long term, it's an amazing solution. Other jbs will open up because of the panels... but in the short term, the pros don't seem to outweigh the cons, to most people.

Personally, I'm all for solar.

[Ziroc]

The problem is the space needed for a lot of power makes it an issue for some things. But nano tech has been working on shrinking the size of the solar cells and bend more sunlight into its cell to be MUCH more efficient. Current/older Solar cells were about 30% efficient. New nanotech versions are smaller, and are up to 60% more efficient. (You will start seeing them on all kinds of signs soon--even stop signs will soon have LEDs on them. So the sign can be seen better day and night...

Nanotech also opened up the way for a spray on paint that basically becomes one big solar cell! And soon, solar cells will be able to be disguised as roofing tiles shingles, so you can have the look of a normal roof, and 100% coverage with solar power. IMO, every single new house should be built with this as soon as its released to the public.

[machinehead]

Somebody is investing heavily in solar power. Where I work we have made well over a hundred of these furnaces and are supposed to ship 30 of them this month alone.
http://www.gtsolar.com/products/hem.php

[ZFR]

Originally Posted by Kyrvias Like you said, switching to Solar Energy would create a *lot* of jobless people.

Wow! Bastiat wrote about this few hundred years ago, and yet I still see statements like the above made every day.

Well, here goes.

Economics 101:

Switching to solar energy will create 0 (zero) jobless people.

An example:
Let's say there are 1000 people employed in the bread industry, earning 10 million $ per year.
Then one day the Amazing Bread Machine is invented that can creat an infinite amount of bread out of thin air for free.
This would mean that a thousand people are now jobless, right?
WRONG.
The 10 million $ that were spent on bread annually will not need to be spent on it, and people will spend it on something else!! For example they will now have 10million $ to spend on shoes, cars and ice cream. This means that for the 1000 bread-making jobs "destroyed" 1000 new jobs were created for shoe-makers, car-makers and ice-cream makers.
(The only difference being that before people had only bread, now they have both bread and shoes/car/ice-cream)

It works the other way. Public works does not "create" jobs.

Let's say in an effort to reduce unemployment, a city decides to employ 100 people, (1000$/month each) and have them "clean the streets".
So unemployment was reduced and 100 jobs were created, right?
WRONG
The 100000 $/per month (1000$ x100) the city has to take from its people in taxes. So it means that every month, the citizens have 100000 $ less to spend on ice-cream/shoes/cars. This means that while 100 people would gain a new job, the ice-cream/shoes/cars industry would lose exactly that amount of jobs due to the smaller demand.
(Only difference is that instead of spending money on something they want (shoes/ice-cream/cars), people spend it on something the government wants (cleaning streets). You may think this good (I don't), but don't say it reduces unemplyment!)
Lol, and yet we have governments creating public works and still wondering how come unemployment isn't decreasing.

So yes, machines, doing the jobs of people would never create unemployment.

And if you're not convinced by the above example look at it this way. Which countries have lower unemployment: the highly industrialized ones (USA, Japan...) or ones where everything was done manually? Or... how come comapred to 400 years ago, now we have one man run a machine that does the job that 100 people used to do then, the amount of population increased dramatically, and still unemployment is just as high (if not lower)?

Thank you for your attentioin.

Kind Regards,
ZFR


PS
And don't say that people who used to make bread won't be able to switch jobs and do something else. This is just not true. Especially nowdays it's very easy to switch jobs. I'm sure more than 75% of Ironworkers have worked in at least 2 different jobs...

[SpiritWarrior]

I have always seen it this way too, plus I think worrying about losing jobs even if it was true, is no excuse for such a sweeping, progressive change in the world. Things would be cheaper, and easier in the long run. Why hold ourselves back with fear?

There were men who used to deliver coal to my door every 3 days when I grew up. During he days I didn't see them they were stocking and packing the coaltrucks. When people started switching to oil and central heating no-one gave a thought to them being out of a job. Many many of these people actually went into the oil delivery service so I still saw them. As technology changes the people do too.

[Bungleau]

The distinction comes in, I believe, when you've been doing a job long enough to build skills at it, which then commands a premium. It happens all the time... someone works 20-25 years at a company, moves up to a nice salary... and then gets let go. Finding some other job *where they can command the same salary* ends up being far harder, and leads to unemployment. Sure... they *could* go to work at McDonald's tomorrow, but I'm *pretty* sure that Mickey D's won't pay a counter clerk US$65,000 per year....

I believe the answer is to always be expanding your skill set, which is something I do regularly. I promote myself in my market and am well-known throughout the world. Should anything ever happen to my current employer, there are hundreds of companies around the world that know me, know my abilities, and can possibly call on me to help them, either long-term or short-term.

I just found out that a friend of mine was let go yesterday... she's not quite sure what she's going to do next. I've asked her to send her resume over, and perhaps I can help. If that happens to me, the next thing I do is to announce to my world that I'm now available independently...

And who knows? I may take the opportunity to prove that out shortly

Hmmm... I think this rambled a bit into strange places, but I'm not interested in polishing it up right now. Maybe later...

[ZFR]

Originally Posted by Bungleau The distinction comes in, I believe, when you've been doing a job long enough to build skills at it, which then commands a premium. It happens all the time... someone works 20-25 years at a company, moves up to a nice salary... and then gets let go. Finding some other job *where they can command the same salary* ends up being far harder, and leads to unemployment. Sure... they *could* go to work at McDonald's tomorrow, but I'm *pretty* sure that Mickey D's won't pay a counter clerk US$65,000 per year....

There is something in what you say but...
(for the sake of example let's use traditional-electricity / solar cells. i.e solar cells were introduced making lots of people "lose" their jobs in the traditional electricity industry)

a)It's highly unlikely that *all* the people from t-e will "lose" their jobs. And it's the less skillfull ones that have to go, not the experienced ones.

b)A peson who has spent 25-30 years in t-e industry must have devolped other skills. You can't earn a big salary just by knowing how to screw in light bulbs. Trust me, 99.99% of those people, taking their experience into account, would earn comparable salaries in other industries too.

And
c)For the 0.01%: it didn't happen in a day, they've seen it coming they should have prepared for it. If they didn't, really their fault. For their stupidity they will now earn 6$/hour at Mcdonald's. They do a great service to society by being a warning to others and young people by looking at them start learning new skills so as not to end up like this. As a consolation, they will now have cheaper electricity, which evens it out a tiny bit...
(and yes, due to the fact that people pay less for electricity and have more to spend on Macdonald's the demand on McDonalds would increase causing salaries for counter clerks to slightly rise...)

bungleau, really... if someone had spent 25-30 years making floppy drives and can make absolutely nothing else, it's really his fault only that he ends up at MacDonalds when the CDs come.

[Kyrvias]

Originally Posted by ZFR *snip*

...touch'e.

[Bungleau]

See responses...

Originally Posted by ZFR There is something in what you say but... (for the sake of example let's use traditional-electricity / solar cells. i.e solar cells were introduced making lots of people "lose" their jobs in the traditional electricity industry) a)It's highly unlikely that *all* the people from t-e will "lose" their jobs. And it's the less skillfull ones that have to go, not the experienced ones. True... but "less skillful" is relative. When they're the ones with 18 years experience instead of 20, they're not really "less" skillful, for all intents and purposes. They're just lowest on the totem pole. b)A peson who has spent 25-30 years in t-e industry must should have devolped other skills. You can't earn a big salary just by knowing how to screw in light bulbs. Trust me, 99.99% of those people, taking their experience into account, would earn comparable salaries in other industries too. You'd be amazed at how much, for some people, that big salary comes from the time they've been there, and not from what they know. They would earn comparable salaries *after* the same amount of time... but to get there, they often have to start over. And can't afford to... And c)For the 0.01%: it didn't happen in a day, they've seen it coming they should have prepared for it. If they didn't, really their fault. For their stupidity they will now earn 6$/hour at Mcdonald's. They do a great service to society by being a warning to others and young people by looking at them start learning new skills so as not to end up like this. As a consolation, they will now have cheaper electricity, which evens it out a tiny bit... Correct... they *SHOULD* have prepared for it. Most people, however, don't. Few people really realize that they are in charge of their own future... most people simply strive to "get a good-paying job" instead of developing valuable skills. (and yes, due to the fact that people pay less for electricity and have more to spend on Macdonald's the demand on McDonalds would increase causing salaries for counter clerks to slightly rise...) One would think so, but I believe that counter clerk salary is more closely related to supply of workers than it is demand placed by customers. bungleau, really... if someone had spent 25-30 years making floppy drives and can make absolutely nothing else, it's really his fault only that he ends up at MacDonalds when the CDs come. Agreed. And when it's a programmer, a researcher, an engineer, a teacher, a manager... it's still their own fault, but they've lived in a trap of comfort... velvet handcuffs, so to speak

*edit* if you think about it, we actually agree, for the most part.