to top it off, your tax dollars supported the grants

I agree that's a lot of cash for something that's never going to pay for itself.

Your post doesn't contain a link to the article you reference, but I going comment anyway.

All new and pioneering technologies are almost always hugely expensive. Perhaps, knowledge from this $500,000 system could produce a system for half that cost, then, half that, etc., until it could become economical for the rest of the world.

That said, I too am a Conservative, and I also believe in the economy of scale.

Dear Globalspec,

The 224 words of the original post is a lot more than necessary to express an opinion. To me it is a senseless waste of CR4 readers' time to read an angry rant about a link that is not yet known to exist.

So what if the OP's opinion is a dull and flailing rant against incremental technological development. My friend once single-handedly wrestled two cobras and a rabid platypus. He could easily have become famous doing it nightly on live TV. But first he would have to spend a fortune making platypuses rabid.

I for the life of me cannot figure out why GlobalSpec bothered to print my absurd rebuttal that I'm writing right now. I agree that I am utterly pointless and should be met with resounding laughter. That's why I call myself a Buffoon. But the original poster could have contributed more to society by taking the time to consider that the aeroplane and light bulb were similarly expensive-to-produce items that didn't fill an immediate commercial demand.

Sincerly,

Ol' Punkinhead

The first computers (1976) also cost an arm and a leg (and more) and yet us pioneers spend the equivalent of 500,000 litre of petrol to buy a PC to have a little bit of slow computing power.

Would I do it again? I think yes.

Being an active user of solar electric self-production for a number of years, this thread should know that I have long since thrown in the towel on being "Off the Grid." The cost of saving the energy including the replacement costs of batteries and controllers is not cost effective. The complexity of finding cost effective appliances and the need for UPS backups on just about everything electronic in a home has long-since convinced me that what this countries electric energy users need are an overbuilt National GRID system. Not the reverse. I store my excess electricity by spinning my utilitie's watt meter backwards. The savings of a properly sized system pays for itself in less than eight years. Some of my system's cells in our array are pushing thirty five years. Anyone contemplating solar electric should dig up a good spreadsheet program and do the numbers before opting to go off the grid. Staying on the grid is the cheapest way to go when you make your own electricity. Period.

To go one step farther... I have been a fan of NASA's proposed and ignored space solar power system that has been tabled by congress since the late 1960's. The security issues, they say, would make the microwave to earth transmitters too much of a risk if commandeered and used as weapons of mass destruction. What the hey? We have Special Ops bases built on top of every oil loading platform in the middle east right now. Their operational cost is a part of why oil is so expensive, albeit it is hidden from the average U.S. citizen (They don't call it Black Ops for nothing.). They launch and monitor Autonomous Underwater ROV's for mines and dive to remove these devices from ship channels when they are found and no announcements are made, it is just SOP for this kind of anti-terror activity... Here's a link to data about that area of the international business world (The link is toward the bottom left of the webpage): http://www.green-metroplex.com/Definitions/small/Energy_Watch.html

So, why not Marines or Spec Operators in space to protect the microwave emitters, too? With enormous amounts of energy from the sun, on space based generation stations funded by existing utility companies, a national electric grid could and would supply cheap, clean power for our ever increasing appetites and put our country back in the game for centuries. We're spending $700,000,000,000 a year for foreign energy this year. That will be 70 trillion dollars in ten years. No way we can sustain that before our economy will collapse and cause a world wide depression of biblical proportions. We have to change our energy sources - yesterday.

Here is a link to that topic published by the Baltimore Sun: http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/editorial/bal-ed.space25jul25,0,7791081.story

Oops, that's 700 billion dollars per year folks.

I've dug up the spread sheet and PV solar doesn't work in my area. You cheat the system today because you "spin the utilities meter backwards". In the next few years you will have to pay for that privilage. If you want to see how the electric grid will be in the near future, I suggest you study the natural gas grid that went through similar changes during the energy shortages of the mid 70's. Today, if you misjudge your gas needs the penalties are deep and severe. If you want to swap gas or spin the meter backwards, it'll cost you.

The $500,000 foley in the OP was a joke on us tax payers. No new technology, noting in the increase of efficency was put up. As a matter of fact, the house had a natural gas back up for all the long sunless streaches. I have power tools I use routinely at my home and the $500,000 system could begin to handle peak demands for me.

Pointing to an opinion article is not facts. Then to top it off, its full of holes. Yeah oil was $25 in the past so at $125 any energy saving system should be a go. Thats wrong. At $125 today, we are about 20% higher in price than in 1981 because of the inflated dollar. The cost to make the space system has risen even higher because of the shortages of exotic materials and alloys. Its fun to discuss, but the cost to protect a space "power grid" would also run the ultimate cost up.