Brilliant!  ... which country is implementing it?

Ok.  Good idea.  Keep thinking and blogging about it.  I like where this is going!

Jon,

Interesting idea!  But, if this is a government project,  don't forget to factor in salaries for administration people... figure a couple executive people, maybe eight or nine staffers, clerks and interns, and you've easily got total salaries of around $1,000,000 per year or more.

And, sadly, those individual salaries would barely qualify the person to buy a home in either of our markets.  :-)

Dude.....that's cool.

If only we could get everyone thinking about energy solutions in a creative way.  Great post. 

Very interesting. Maybe a wind turbine component would be appealing as well, to help diversify the security, but maintain the alternative power characteristics.

I've thought about solar panels for my home... more so as of late. What a difference it would make if only a third of us tried it out.

Jonathan~ 

It's quite possible that you will have 600 AR members cheering when you post this to the Eco-All-Stars Group . I bet they/we not only will think you are on the right track,but totally and completely ECO-brilliant!..

Jonathan,

Respectfully, I don't think 'Solar Power' is the answer...from everything I've read and studied over the years...I'm not ruling it out for some 'low energy' applications, but to replace current sources and rising energy demands...go back to your premise...there are 2 major factors to consider when discussing 'electric power'...generation and transmission...wouldn't it make more sense to focus our attention to ways of eliminating the cost of 'power transmission'...where each residence would have its own 'energy source'...be it some form of 'micro nuclear'...hydrogen cell...or others currently in the development stage...just think...no poles. transmission towers, underground lines to install or maintain...no polluting power factories...no unsightly solar panels...no need to generate power at one location, only to have to transmit it hundreds of miles to other locations, then redistribute it to individuals...just think, no wires, no cables, no towers, no transformers, no poles, no dams, no digging, no 'solar farms', etc. Just some more 'food' for thought!!! Thanks,   Fran 

Thanks for the comments!  Just about to jump on a plane so I can't respond to them individually right now.

But I did join eco-All-Stars

I love the environmentally conscious dinner conversation.  I have been thinking of adding solar panels in my sunny back yard, but so far the cost has kept me from doing so.  I am sure this is true for many people.

I think it is an incredible idea.  Here are the drawbacks I see.  Line losses.  There would be a certain percentage of power that would be lost in transmission.  That would have to be accounted for.  Administration and Maintenance.  The cost would probably at least double to run the project and keep the cells producing at peak efficiency. 

If it were administered by a government agency or non-competitive monopoly, double costs again. 

I think you should throw this idea out to the Northwest Energy Trust...

I like it.  We want to go solar at some point.

I agree it sounds good how about us Northerns that get sun 10% of the time during the winter?

It would make a lot of sense and could even get some backing if those in the real power to do something about "GREEN" power would be serious about their efforts instead of using fake ice shelf imagery and flying around in their private jets.  (in case that lost anyone, Al Gore claims to be this huge environmentalist but used footage from the fictional movie "The Day After Tomorrow" in his "Inconvenient Truth" movie)

Hi Jonathan, A recent article here in San Diego showed that the power costs actually increased measurably for commercial solar use. Hard to believe. I like your ideas but the sales job of how beneficial solar power would be and how much it would save, has been greatly obscured by the reality of how the power companies allocate the credit. That is not the fault of the alternative power generation but rather the power companies and how they view the alternative source of power. Until such time as there is a guaranteed return on investment that is measurable, there will be continued resistance to going solar.

This is not a bad idea at.  There was an article in the New Hampshire paper, The Telegraph, about how it was not feasible for most to invest in solar panels.  There was one mention of a company who was going to place solar panels on homes and then lease them to the owners -- however, so far it has not been feasible.  That idea with the solar backed securities may make all of this a reality! Active SOLAR!

Man, how I would love to be a fly on the wall in your house!  YOu had way too much time on your hands at dinner!  

Solar has been pretty good for hot water in Hawaii.  It really pencils out dollarwise because of all the local tax credits.

Wouldn't it be interesting if you could get a small town or even a subdivision to do this? If my area was doing it, I'd jump on board in a heartbeat. You'd need an NGO or grass-roots org to run it - you'd be in bureaucratic doggie-doo if you let the government try to run it.

Respectfully, I disagree with your listed problem #1 - I don't think $6,000 up front would make this cost prohibitive for most people. Some - yes. But it's doable and well worth the return on investment. For crying out loud, when the Rams moved here to St. Louis we had to buy PSLs (personal seat licenses that you must have in order to buy season tickets) which were $2500 and up. All the local banks started offering small loans so folks could come up with the up-front money needed. And that was for a football team (not a very good one at that, but that's another story). I would think they'd offer something similar were this crazy napkin idea to come to fruition.

Keep us posted!

Enter your idea in Sundance's What's the Big Idea contest

Capitalism at work! Go for it! Find a need, fill the need and create an income generating system. Only in AMERICA!