<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Five More Solar Power Myths</title>
	<atom:link href="http://morgansolar.wordpress.com/2008/08/15/five-more-solar-power-myths/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://morgansolar.wordpress.com/2008/08/15/five-more-solar-power-myths/</link>
	<description>The off-topic, slightly skewed version of the Morgan Solar Blog.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 29 Oct 2009 02:43:13 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Solar Expert</title>
		<link>http://morgansolar.wordpress.com/2008/08/15/five-more-solar-power-myths/#comment-262</link>
		<dc:creator>Solar Expert</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 29 Oct 2009 02:41:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://morgansolar.wordpress.com/?p=354#comment-262</guid>
		<description>Oh my...more than half of your myths in this and your previous are actually true...please do some research before you post these kind of unsubstantiated posts that mislead people.

Solar power IS expensive. It IS inefficient NOW. Its technology is FAR from mature. Do you actually know the conversion rate of solar panels? And the power loss in converting electricity generated from solar power into usable electricity? (The power electrical components)

Solar power has huge potential. But research in this renewable source of energy has not being driven till recent years when everyone is suddenly concerned about climate change. On an average, it takes 50 years for a new resource to replace the former dominant resource, which is currently oil and natural gas. This is heavily driven by policy makers, and it would be save to say that NO ENERGY RESOURCE including coal, oil, natural gas, nuclear, solar and hydro (the list goes on indefinitely...) is viable without having appropriate policies to drive the industrial market. You are correct in saying the technology does not drive the change. Its the policy makers. You may not know, but they have the power to even change human conceptions through effective government policies. Solar power can ONLY EXIST with tax subsidies and incentives. Unsubsidised solar power will NOT WORK. Please check out the current costs of other energies like NUCLEAR and HYDRO. Then you will understand how expensive unsubsidized solar power is. Both grid and off-grid utility costs are driven by the industry which is in turn driven by policies. That is the reason why energy sources differ in every country.

And for your learning and understanding, firstly technologies from places like MIT or any other research facility does not come cheap and viable. They produce new and innovative technologies from the LABORATORY. The next step is to produce a viable PRODUCTION LINE before it can be deemed viable. So please check with industry prices before you say storage can be cheap. It may just be 10 years later before the hydrogen cell technology can be viable on a competitive basis.

Also, the REAL reason why intense sunlight is actually NOT GOOD for solar power is because most of the time intense sunlight is associated with high ambient temperature, and the maximum power drawn decrease with increasing temperature. So please grab any renewable energy textbooks and learn more about the characteristics of a solar cell before you make such ignorant comments.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Oh my&#8230;more than half of your myths in this and your previous are actually true&#8230;please do some research before you post these kind of unsubstantiated posts that mislead people.</p>
<p>Solar power IS expensive. It IS inefficient NOW. Its technology is FAR from mature. Do you actually know the conversion rate of solar panels? And the power loss in converting electricity generated from solar power into usable electricity? (The power electrical components)</p>
<p>Solar power has huge potential. But research in this renewable source of energy has not being driven till recent years when everyone is suddenly concerned about climate change. On an average, it takes 50 years for a new resource to replace the former dominant resource, which is currently oil and natural gas. This is heavily driven by policy makers, and it would be save to say that NO ENERGY RESOURCE including coal, oil, natural gas, nuclear, solar and hydro (the list goes on indefinitely&#8230;) is viable without having appropriate policies to drive the industrial market. You are correct in saying the technology does not drive the change. Its the policy makers. You may not know, but they have the power to even change human conceptions through effective government policies. Solar power can ONLY EXIST with tax subsidies and incentives. Unsubsidised solar power will NOT WORK. Please check out the current costs of other energies like NUCLEAR and HYDRO. Then you will understand how expensive unsubsidized solar power is. Both grid and off-grid utility costs are driven by the industry which is in turn driven by policies. That is the reason why energy sources differ in every country.</p>
<p>And for your learning and understanding, firstly technologies from places like MIT or any other research facility does not come cheap and viable. They produce new and innovative technologies from the LABORATORY. The next step is to produce a viable PRODUCTION LINE before it can be deemed viable. So please check with industry prices before you say storage can be cheap. It may just be 10 years later before the hydrogen cell technology can be viable on a competitive basis.</p>
<p>Also, the REAL reason why intense sunlight is actually NOT GOOD for solar power is because most of the time intense sunlight is associated with high ambient temperature, and the maximum power drawn decrease with increasing temperature. So please grab any renewable energy textbooks and learn more about the characteristics of a solar cell before you make such ignorant comments.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Five More Solar Power Myths</title>
		<link>http://morgansolar.wordpress.com/2008/08/15/five-more-solar-power-myths/#comment-36</link>
		<dc:creator>Five More Solar Power Myths</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 15 Aug 2008 03:52:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://morgansolar.wordpress.com/?p=354#comment-36</guid>
		<description>[...] Go to the author&#8217;s original blog: Five More Solar Power Myths [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Go to the author&#8217;s original blog: Five More Solar Power Myths [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
