Comments

Though I would like to see solar power everywhere, the cost IS the driving factor behind the slow spread. Regardless of the efficiency, it would NOT cost $2000 to cover my roof with solar panels. I'm sorry, but that is just wrong. As an electrical engineer, I have considered the alternatives, made the correct calculations with the highest rated panels available to residential consumers in mind, and come to the conclusion that it would take me 26 years of living in my house with no increase in electricity demand, expected yearly increases in electric cost, and zero maintenance costs for the panels to make up for the cost of the panels and installation. This simply will not do. As for vehicles, that's all fine and dandy if you want to drive 4mph on flat terrain and live in New Mexico. I live in Ohio, where the number of sunny days is far lower than the number of cloudy days ( which I prefer anyway ). I do not use my car all day ( and I only live 2.5 mi from work ), so it can charge while I am in the parking lot. That's great, but all that does is lower the amount of electricity I would need to charge it at night, which means less burned coal ( sorry, but Ohio's electricity is mostly coal ) in the long run. But that doesn't change the fact that I need batteries to run my car. What happens to batteries when you 'recycle' them?...certainly not the same thing that happens to plastic bottles or paper bags. Hybrid vehicles? Are you kidding? I would rather you buy a gas guzzler than put another one of those batteries into the environment. Solar is great, and it is my favorite solution. But it is not real-time energy effective. It is for storage of electricity in batteries to be used later. Unfortunately, what is holding us up is the battery technology. If you really want to make a difference, don't call your senator and tell him to demand solar power, tell him to demand battery research. We have tons of ways of making electricity, but every one of those ways requires storage in batteries for portable use. Make a difference; inform your political friends, activists, and leaders that you demand new battery technology, for example, Advanced Polymer Battery-Capacitor Hybrids. Good luck. Peace, vive le roi, Alive

Folks, you need to understand the difference between electric and magnetic fields. There is no evidence whatsoever that magnetic fields cause us any harm (Think, MRI machines?). Electric fields on the other hand, cause us harm based on the strength of the waves hitting you and the duration of exposure and, of course, the frequency band in question. Each molecule in your body contains electrons, 'static' (not in your casual definition, but stationary) electric charges, that are or can be adversely affected/energized improperly due to Electric Fields; there do not exist 'static' magnetic charges, therefore magnetic fields are not known to adversely affect us. The researchers at MIT use only magnetic fields at the correct resonance to transmit the power wirelessly. I recommend you read up on the advances in magnetic field research and their effect on the human body; particularly, look at studies of the after effects of MRIs ( of various types ), of which the conclusions are harmless. There are several studies with regard to very high gauss magnetic fields (even for uses including levitation), many of which are ongoing. Good luck.