Dave G: So while I agree that photo-voltaics are too expensive, the more basic solar designs that focus light for heat are much better, and they produce the most power right when you need it.

There is still more talk than activity for solar thermal, and the jury is still out on whether there is a reasonable return on investment. One big hint, so far all of the original operators of any reasonably sized solar thermal facilities have sold out, finding the margins that do materialize are just too thin. Wind though, doubles nearly each year measured by capacity, and the operators are hiring more staff. It was thought 2009 would be terrible for wind due to the credit chrisis, but a big constraint appears to be transmission capacity as much if not more than funding.

jeffhre: Natural gas is used for peak loads unlike nuclear and coal plants…
Wind is a better “bridge” as it is virtually cost competitive…
Solar has begun to make sense for homeowners in the last two years, but only in states with generous subsidies…

Solar is not cost effective at commercial scale most places and PV doesn’t work at night; NG is too expensive for a bridge fuel for baseline generation; coal works where it is not stopped by environmental concerns; and though the US has triple the number France’s nuclear plants, the US faces decommissioning costs for older reactors and no solution yet to the waste issues. So IMO, with half of new generating capacity being large scale wind already, its ready though the grid isn’t.

I agree that wind is worth more investment, but I wouldn’t discount solar power plants. In particular, the largest solar power plant in the world is already cost competitive with coal:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SEGS

Yes, these are mainly for desert locations, but we actually have a lot of land like this. The main issue is the same as wind – getting the grid lines to these areas.

Yes, solar power doesn’t work at night, but that’s not the point. Like natural gas, solar power also helps with the peak load, which happens during the day, espcially on hot sunny days when everyone turns on their air conditioner.

In addition, the new solar power tower stations focus heat to a much higher temperature, and they store this high temperature in the form of liquid sodium, which can be stored in underground tanks to make power later:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_tower

So while I agree that photo-voltaics are too expensive, the more basic solar designs that focus light for heat are much better, and they produce the most power right when you need it.

Koz: Dude that’s a lot of math based on an assumption that 25% of a car population will need batteries all at the same time. Nothing wrong with a thought experiment but your assumptions have to come from some research or thoughtful reasoning. Even on the busiest driving holidays only a fraction of the cars are on the road at the same time. Only a fraction of that would be traveling long enough distances to need a swap and only a fraction of that would need a swap within the battery’s recharge time. I believe the current Better Place battery can be recharged in less than one hour without degradation issues. So it is more like Israel needs 25 swapping stations with 50 batteries in each to service 150K Better Place cars. This would allow for a max of 15,000 swaps in a 12hr period.  (Quote)

It is an oversimplification, but to illustrate, not be definitive.

What I assumed is that 25% of the cars swap a battery per day (if you go to Israel, many people driving cross the whole country delivering and visiting.

your reduction may be possible, but remember that it assumes ONE battery style, if you only need 50 batteries and 25 stations, but 6 types of batteries, it is still a LOT of extra batteries kicking around. and for a country that is about 1/750th the physical size of the USA.

My point was that it will NEVER be feasible here.

jeffhre: BioDiesel can be as simple as saponified cooking oil!

Or just use the cooking oil as it is. Google SVO (Straight Vegetable Oil as fuel).