would seem to be the right move - the global energy grid needs to be tied together so that nations in daylight can supply the nations in darkness [his reasoning was not based on solar but conventional power]. Given a broad and globally dispersed network of solar collection, at that point storage becomes far less of an issue.

Sadly, we're moving away from this kind of vision back to tribalism. If we can't clean house, maybe the cockroaches deserve a shot at running the planet more than we do.

Even if one didn't want to go long-distance transoceanic, consider the variations in seasonal daylight between Nome and Tierra del Fuego.

Really, the future is electrical. What other type of energy is as easily transported, and can be generated from so many different kinetic and potential sources? What else can power a keychain flashlight or a rolling mill that turns ingots into cans? Clean and non-polluting in its application.

Some day, I hope that fossil fuels will be regarded in the same way that we now see other old energy sources, such as whale oil, firewood or yoked oxen.

We're not really looking that hard for sources. It's estimated that fewer than 3% of dams suitable for electrical generation have been so utilized in the US--these are existing dams, not proposed ones. Remember, during the 1980's, the "minigeneration" trend for using smaller rivers to generate not hundreds of megawatts, but hundreds of kilowatts? I wonder whatever became of it.

We're also paying dearly for another trend. Most of our universities are graduating engineers schooled in digital electronics, while the more traiditional fields of study such as power generation and transmission have gone begging. Let's hope that trend reverses itself before too long.

part of Fuller's brilliance was the development of the Dymaxion World Map which reveals points of near-congruence of the world power grid already.

You learn not to use the big appliances after dark. It doesn't take much in the way of batteries to watch TV, run some lights, the frig, water pump... through the night. And if you're unable to adjust your lifestyle, you're the one that pays for it. Power lines eat about 7% of what they transmit, so it's more efficient to generate locally, too.

But there's just so much another goosedown-filled comforter will do for you when your only choices for winter heat are firewood and electricity (like me). I've existed with only the former and some kerosene for lighting for a week at a time when winter storms inevitably take down the transmission lines. It's not easy or pleasant.

The people that I know who live off the grid usually have a generator tucked away in reserve (I'm on the grid and I still have one--those toilets need water to flush, you know). Regardless, the ROI of equipping a home with PV and all of the associated gear is still not very good.

Try passive solar supplemented by radiant heat in floors using solar and wind energy, an efficient venting system, and high R wall and R roof insulation. Heavy duty insulation and capture of solar heat through thermal mass can be done with essentially free natural materials available on or near most sites in a variety of ways. So-called primitive people have been doing similar things for millennia and surviving where most of us moderns wouldn't be able to without costly and resource-wasteful high tech solutions. Even in pretty extreme climates, heating is no problem with some creativity. Using Home Depot or Lowe's is another question although it can be done conventionally, too, if you don't pay attention to the cost in money, resource depletion, and CO2 emissions.

Speaking of R. Buckminster Fuller, in Nine Chains to the Moon, he describes doing the math on what it would take in energy units to make the world sustainable for all at a comfortable standard of living given the earth's resources physically and humanity's existing knowledge base. His computations showed that it could be done with presently available resources and technology through design science. Then he did the math on where the energy was going. He found that a huge percentage of it was flowing to non-productive military use.

Bucky held that the world's problems are caused by two factors, failure to use "metaphysical wealth," i.e., knowledge and creativity, and exploitation. Explotation he laid to "the great pirates" and invisible lines drawn on the earth's surface that tare called boundaries. This facilitates the diversion of physical wealth into the pirates' ever-increasing treasure trove and prevents the intelligent and humane allocation of the earth's resource, which belong the all beings on the planet, not just to those who manipulate the rules for their own advantage.

Oh, and check out Rocky Mountain Institute.

but ofttimes a great thinker.

PV cells are no more than about 15 percent efficient (and usually much less); modern hydroelectric installations can achieve better than 90 percent conversion efficiency, with a lower capital cost per kilowatt-hour delivered.

PV cells don't generate electricity that's usable as-is. The output must be regulated--and if AC is desired, converted. There are significant losses associated with this process.

And what you can't use or store is wasted. Storage entails using batteries--lead-acid have the highest conversion efficiency of about 90%, depending on the construction. And if you generate more than you can store or use, it's wasted (unless you're on the grid, but then we're back to where we started). To all of this, add the toxic burden of manufacturing and periodically refurbishing/remanufacturing lead-containing batteries.

Contrast this with a hydroelectc generator--one is able to increase or decrease the water flow through the turbines to meet electrical demand with little waste. It matters not a bit when the demand is called for.

While PV may be the next Big Thing in electrical generation, I can't see it being successfully deployed widely on a small scale (i.e. home use). There are certain efficiencies of scale associated with most technologies and what's really needed is to get the large utilities into the PV act.

Contrast this with a hydroelectc generator

The next step in hydroelec is harnessing the awesome power of the ocean tide. Expensive to develop but definitely doable, and more than economically feasible when done. Folks are working hard in this direction as we speak.

There have been a couple of big advances in PV in the last couple years. At this point it's no more of an investment to go PV than it is to put up a couple new poles to bring in power (and the ROI is awesome). That investment is supposed to drop 50% within a few years.

The off grid people I know run 12 (or 24) V through the house. The AC converter is only for heavy appliances, all at one end. A friend of mine (on the grid) came into $20K about 6 years ago. He put it into PV on his roof here in Maine. He makes > $500 / year on the excess (net).

Batteries are kind of nasty, but it's about the only nasty I can think of, and it's pretty mild.

The efficiencies of scale in electric power all have to do with generation - use heavy fuels (coal, uranium) efficiently. The rest of it (switching, maintaining a grid of powerlines and transformers) is all pain. Of course, fights over "regulation" and "monopolies" are good for endless hours of distraction if you're into that.

Hydroelectric is wonderfully efficient, but we're pretty much out of rivers to dam, and the fish use(d) those rivers, too. All that sunlight was just getting wasted on your roof.

The efficiency at the 'use' end is much more important than efficiency at the generating end anyway. Stop manufacturing "instant on" devices (which often consume ~40 watts even while "off") and that's a whole bunch of power plants that don't need building.

...are hard to come by. I live in Western Oregon, on the side of a northwest facing forested hillside--and my electrical co-op buys power from Bonneville (some of the cheapest rates in the country).

What, given the limited sunlight and the dark winters of western Oregon, would be my ROI? I don't see a lot of PV installations out here.

You have, however, pointed out an important aspect--our energy consumption habits. Designers are still operating as if power were free. We seem to think that adequate insulation somehow makes up for the big-screen plasma TV, or the double Sub-Zero refrigerator, or the energy requirements of heating a 5000+ square foot house (for two people), complete with outdoor lighting that burns all night. Our computers need to be the biggest, fastest, multicore-with-high-end graphcs systems, even if we do little more than browse and write email.

So I know about dark winters. Maine is blessed with relatively sunny winter days (compared to say, Michigan), but even with 10 year old solar tech, it's only a problem if it's so overcast you don't have a shadow. And being on the north side of a hill or mountain is a problem. But still, most housing sites in the continental US are capable of generating more than they use, if they were oriented correctly (builders need to learn to use a compass), and same with heat, with some backup for a stormy week (don't forget, wood is carbon-neutral, and modern wood stoves are close to 90% efficient).

I spent a week or so going through US gov't energy figures. They're kind of difficult to piece together, because the use different units and different categories for summarization. But from what I saw, transportation (where I couldn't find anything to separate out trucking from taking the SUV to the 7-11) is roughly 24% of oil consumption. Manufacturing (again, very difficult to say how efficient these operations could be) is maybe 28% of energy consuption. Residential and commercial (stores, offices) are over 60% of energy consumption, and it's basically all electric. With current tech, those could easily be 4 X as efficient, and with almost no investment, probably 2 X as efficient.

When I get some time, I'll try to post what I've found. But I promise you, we can make a 30% or larger cut in our fossil fuel consumption very, very easily. Like pays itself back in less than 2 years. They just don't want you thinking that way.