An extremely detailed look at how "a massive switch from coal, oil, natural gas and nuclear power plants to solar power plants could supply 69 percent of the U.S.’s electricity and 35 percent of its total energy by 2050." So... let's do it!

The authors state "It is the lack of public awareness that solar power is a practical alternative"; I think this is mistaken. The lack of a 'plan' within the article to address the politics and entrenched power interests that would be confronted by their plan is the 'elephant in the room' that is not -and needs to be- addressed. It would have also been more of a 'green' perspective by addressing what individuals can do -such as small windmills and sorage of energy- to reduce fossil fuel dependency. It IS an excellent article regards solar energy but the 'problem' is -and never really has been from a systemic pov- not technical but societal.

As many reviewers have mentioned, the lobbying efforts of the power companies have not been allowed for in the plan. That does not say that a coherent lobby effort can not be made by others - it is just an uphill battle that needs to be recognized. Back to the article. It is well thought out as far as it goes- a plan that is on paper with allowances for performance degradation and for sizing impacts. I would say it is an excellent article with solid research. The only lingering bad taste in my mouth from it is that it is another effective plan that will go nowhere without a crisis - and that is not a prospect I want to consider for a reasonable way to get the world less dependent on vanishing resources.

While this article is pretty good on the numbers, it is weak on practicality regarding scope, public acceptance and level of subsidization.

The story gathers coherently the promise of solar energy that needs to be tapped to protect the environment and the economy. It serves to counteract much of the ignorance and disinformation that appears elsewhere in the media and political discourse. The political story is covered too briefly. The need for politicians to finance their election campaigns from donations from the oil lobbies, the coal lobbies, the agribusiness ethanol lobbies, and the huge nuclear power lobbies has been pitifully displayed in the recent congressional votes, especially among the lockstep republicans.

Needs commentary on increasing efficiency, and how that would change our needs. Could mention health improvements/decreases in health care costs with decrease in air pollution. Otherwise quite good.

This is a thorough, fairly conservative consideration of a massive solar energy solution for the United States. Seems to cover most bases (including issues of energy storage at night and during cloud cover. However, there's no discussion of the ecological consequences of covering so much land with solar panels.

NanoSolar of San Jose, CA delivered its first commercial thin film photo voltaic cells on 12/18/07 to Germany at $1/watt. Gov. Schwarzenegger's million roof program in CA seems like a step in the right direction. With net metering in effect "toping" generators may become a thing of the past; as the electrical system becomes less centralized and home roofs supply half or more of the homes needs. Perhaps, this is not the moment to launch really expensive new programs. But rather, it is the time to encourage those that a headed the "right way" with small incentives and small penalties.

The story provides and excellent jumping off point for a really serious discussion of this important topic. It educates, informs and proselytizes in equal measure without talking down to the reader. It does however lack a detailed discussion of the major obstacle to the take up of such a proposal: political will and how to counter the lobbying efforts of entrenched interests. These lobbying effects are formidable as witnessed by the recent successful lobbying by auto manufacturers against States freedom to impose emission limits.

This is really comical. Apparently they don't believe in nuclear plants and want to close all the existing ones. No mention of what happens when it gets cloudy in the southwest. These one side, self serving, grand plans put forth by technologists are an insult to the public and undemocratic. I'd rather not be taxed for some boondoggle dreamed up in an ivory tower.

The article would have been more balanced if the contrarian view was presented, even briefly. It seemed that the author believes that private interests would not stand in the way of such a large scale change of land use, as we have seen with wind generation in some parts of the country. Also the comprehensive presentation of associated costs left out any mention of obtaining cadmium and telluride for photovoltaic cells. I couldn't help but wonder if these minerals come from Africa where they would become the new blood diamonds. Perhaps a second article about the political costs of this proposal is in order. All in all, this is an informative article about possibilities that have not been brought to the public debate.

I thought this was quite a comprehensive article. Much more so at least than you would usually get in consumer level news. But Scientific American has always been a bit above those levels as well. sorry, i digress. seemed to be very well researched, although it could have done with more examples of international development. My opinion of the subject: thought it failed in some ways to address the environmental concerns inherent in solar power, while drastically lower than that of coal etc.etc are still high in terms of pollutants released during manufacture. also my personal belief is that any renewables plan has to incorporate much more than the token amount this article allowed for wind, gethermal, hydro (wave). still a ... More »

Plusses: deals intelligently with a vital subject. Awareness of power storage and transmission needs. Minuses: Doesn't compare solar with wind power, which is cheaper and abundant. Doesn't compare pressurized underground power storage with pumped hydro storage, which for existing lakes is definitely cheaper but has some environmental consequences. Ignores need for local reliance, dependability. Treats power as an end-all.

Yes, very good journalism. We should seize the opportunity this article reveals.