# Why solar will be ubiquitous in 10 years



## HAL (May 10, 2014)

Amine said:


> I still think the common mistake is to assume the tech won't change in 10 years, but our adoption of it will. The tech will change in unforeseeable ways, though. And it won't just be an isolated thing, like "better panels". It will be improvement on a growing number of fronts, like superconduction, batteries/supercapacitors, 3d printing of panels, distributed methods, etc.


Actually the common mistake is to assume all the sunlight hitting the earth can be feasibly harnessed.

At best it's something like 2000 watts per square metre, which is pretty damn good but it's not continuous and is all isolated to the equator. And would still require country-sized solar panel arrays.

Essentially, if technology were to be pushed to it's limits and everything totally optimised, I could rewrite my previous post but instead the solar panel array would need to be, say, only half the size of Wales. But that's still half the size of Wales.

Really, have a read of that booked I linked to. It's very, very, very informative, covering all types of renewable energy sources and the extent to which they could be utilised. It also touches on nuclear as an alternative. The aim of the book is to suggest how we as a global population can wean ourselves off of fossil fuels before they actually do run out.


----------



## Scrabbletray (Apr 27, 2014)

Amine said:


> I still think the common mistake is to assume the tech won't change in 10 years, but our adoption of it will. The tech will change in unforeseeable ways, though. And it won't just be an isolated thing, like "better panels". It will be improvement on a growing number of fronts, like superconduction, batteries/supercapacitors, 3d printing of panels, distributed methods, etc.


I think 10 years is a very short amount of time for considerable technological improvement. The mistake people are always making isn't to ignore change, it's to expect far too much. Only emerging technologies will see any sort of rapid development in a 10 year span. People focus on how rapidly things like computers and cell phones have changed, but large scale engineering isn't really any different than 10 years ago and honestly not that incredibly different than 100 years ago. There were as many people riding the NYC subway system in the 1920s as there are now and the Empire State building still dominates midtown despite being over 80 years old. The same is true for power generation. Most of our energy comes from plants that are older than we are. The average coal plant is probably 40 years old and nuclear plants are probably 35. There is a huge difference between what a solar cell can do in a lab and what it can do in the real world where it has to last decades and be cheap enough to be produced in mass quantities. So far there has been absolutely no evidence that solar will ever be economically feasible. As for the other technology you mention. Batteries and supercapacitors have minuscule energy storage ability compared to what is needed for grid level storage. Pumped hydro is clearly the most economical energy storage although it is still hugely expensive. Superconducting power lines aren't really economically feasible either except in extremely dense cities where size might be a factor. Power lines are already highly efficient and the losses aren't large enough to justify the costs of going to superconductors. 3D printing isn't really even a related technology, but if you know anything about how semiconductors are made they more or less ARE 3D printed.


----------



## Amine (Feb 23, 2014)

a1b2c3d4 said:


> I think 10 years is a very short amount of time for considerable technological improvement.


Let me stop you right there. That statement is demonstrably false; all you have to do is look at the charts, stats, and graphs I posted on page 1 of this thread to see how immensely solar has progressed in the _last_ 10 years. Regardless of how it performs in the next 10, you cannot deny that a whole lot happened in the last 10 years.


----------



## Scrabbletray (Apr 27, 2014)

Amine said:


> Let me stop you right there. That statement is demonstrably false; all you have to do is look at the charts, stats, and graphs I posted on page 1 of this thread to see how immensely solar has progressed in the _last_ 10 years. Regardless of how it performs in the next 10, you cannot deny that a whole lot happened in the last 10 years.


Solar is an emerging technology and it's rapid growth doesn't change the fact that in general technology only advances marginally in a 10 year period of time. A better way to look at it isn't to look how fast solar has grown, but to look at the change in the energy mix. The overall energy mix is hardly changed as all since solar has gone from 1/10th of a drop in the bucket to a drop in the bucket. Just because certain individual technologies advance rapidly doesn't mean that technology as a whole advances rapidly. Assuming a sustained growth rate as an emerging technology transitions to mainstream is not a plausible assumption.

Additionally, the economics of solar are currently based entirely on the availability of government subsidies. Were these subsidies to be removed or even significantly reduced solar panel installation would drop to a fraction of what it currently is. This has already clearly been demonstrated in the wind industry when the production tax credit has expired or come close to expiring and the solar industry is far MORE reliant on subsidies than wind is. Were the states and the federal government to eliminate their solar subsidies you would see at least a 90% drop in solar panel installations.


----------



## intjonn (Apr 20, 2013)

smitty1977 said:


> corporations that are currently in the energy industry are extremely powerful.


M wit ya bay bee; all the way m wit ya..........
govt's too they fukin ih awh up 2.



*<<<<<===========take it frum a koon!*

On an individual basis its not hard jez tayx sum mullah ka buhka


----------



## HFGE (Jul 19, 2014)

a1b2c3d4 said:


> Fusion is extremely technologically complex and that level of complexity means at equal level of cost. I'm not sure how familiar you are with the prices of different materials, but there are HUGE price increases from carbon steel to stainless steel to nickel alloys. The higher temperature and pressures that a material has to be able to withstand the more it will cost and the relationship is almost an exponential one. That's just one little example, the same is true for everything else that would have to go into the plant. The high temperatures and pressure required by fusion along with the highly complex nature of the systems means high capital costs and low reliability unless there is considerable redundancy which means even more cost. This isn't something that can be innovated away, it's a matter of the physics required for a fusion reaction to be sustained.


Considering that the ITER is comparable in construction costs to a modern nuclear power plant, I doubt construction costs will be a prohibiting factor.



a1b2c3d4 said:


> Were the states and the federal government to eliminate their solar subsidies you would see at least a 90% drop in solar panel installations.


For people who have high energy homes solar makes a lot of economic sense with payback periods ranging in 1-2 years. Maybe 5 years if you go with an expensive system. In fact, my utility company was offering free solar panels for houses with an electricity bill of over $150/mo. Panels are extremely cheap now and don't really need subsidies to survive. Although the subsidies and tax breaks do help recoup the costs quicker.

Also considering that the city of Austin can purchase solar for 9 cents/kWh from a major utility kind of proves that solar energy can be economically viable. The high costs associated with renewables are from investment companies wanting to recoup their investment money ASAP so they want the utility companies to charge an amortized premium to consumers. If anything, it's investor greed that's causing renewables to remain expensive. 

However, once the investment debts are paid off, expect that solar or wind energy to become incredibly cheap because the energy they provide is essentially free and the equipment is low maintenance.

The only downside is that most of the solar plants in the US don't have any method of storing energy for supplying baseline energy or energy at night or on cloudy days.


----------



## Trenchary (Aug 25, 2014)

God, I hope so...


----------



## Epicyclic (Aug 7, 2014)

Amine, your kind of idealism is nice. I would like your view to be reality too, but unfortunately, reality is more complicated. Let's be objective and look at the factors for and against from a few viewpoints:

Business: 

FOR: 

-Positive PR and Corporate Social Responsibility
- Subsidies
- Costs are more predictable – the sun is more predictable than oil and gas prices

AGAINST: 

- Solar, and all renewables require a high initial capital outlay and lower operating cost. For oil and gas it’s low outlay, high operating cost. 
- Subsidies are never very certain for solar. It is financially viable for now only with subsidies. 
- Utilities won't take a oil / coal plant offline before it's life cycle is up, unless an alternative is far cheaper. 
- Regulations
- NIMBY problem can’t be avoided, renewables need lots of space. 

Physics / Engineering: 

FOR: 

-	Solar panels would be a good complement to electric cars, if storage technology matures and the charge-at-home model is used. 
-	For places with high distribution costs or plenty of blackouts, any distributed generation source would be more attractive. 

AGAINST: 

Let’s do an idealistic calculation here. We put a few highly optimistic assumptions here: 

-	20% efficient solar panel system AND inverter / wiring system (extremely optimistic)
-	Optimistic 6kWh / sq m / day direct insolation (Solar Insolation Maps])
-	Solar panels are always able to track the sun
-	Hypothetical energy storage system that is 100% efficient 
-	Dust, rain, hail and snow, which can affect efficiency, don't exist. 

[url=http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=97&t=3]How much electricity does an American home use? - FAQ - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) says that average household usage is 903 kWh per month. 

Power generated per sqm per day: 6 x 20% = 1.2 kWh

Power generated per sqm per month: 1.2 kWh x 30 = 36 kWh
Amount of land area needed for an average household: 903 / 36 = 25.08 sqm

Once you factor in the other things like maintanence, angle, NIMBY, etc, the amount of land area needed would be at least double that. If you're a utility, this might be OK, but probably not for an average guy like you and me. 

Good luck finding 25 square meters in an apartment building, not to mention the upfront financial cost. 

Regards,
an engineer


----------



## Epicyclic (Aug 7, 2014)

Hopefully the above post illustrates the difference between a one sided statement and reality. 

There are many green sites around that make all kinds of claims. Inspiring? Yes. I wanted to go into renewable energy because of these. However, reality is never so simple - and that's why one must try to be objective and face the facts with sufficient knowledge.

Yes, solar has progressed tremendously in the last 10 years. Without going into detail, there are many solar innovations in both effieicncy and lowering manufacturing cost. But energy demand is also growing exponentially. And not every site in the world is well suited for wind or solar or whatnot.


----------



## Tezcatlipoca (Jun 6, 2014)

Renewables to Get Most of $7.7 Trillion Power Investments - Bloomberg


----------



## Amine (Feb 23, 2014)

Technical arguments are nice and all, but they are hardly set in stone over years' long timescales. That's why I am avoiding making them; I don't know that much about the technicals (some) and _no one_ knows that much about where it will go in the future. All I pointed out here was suggestive trends.

Anyway, a couple recent articles came out...

UBS and Citigroup expect massive solar-EV revolution | EnergyPost.euEnergyPost.eu

Why EVs will make solar viable without subsidies : Renew Economy

Nothing definitive, but the writing's on the wall.


----------



## Tezcatlipoca (Jun 6, 2014)

Twenty-Two Percent of the World's Power Now Comes from Renewable Sources | Motherboard


----------



## Razare (Apr 21, 2009)

I know why it will become so prevalent...

Solar Freakin Roadways!








Ok, I'm finished trolling.


----------



## Amine (Feb 23, 2014)

Wow I was literally just about to post that video. That shit is incredible.

PS Solar Roadways had the most popular indiegogo campaign ever.

PSS even if people started just doing their driveways, leaving roads alone (they might not actually work for roads), that would vastly increase the available surface area for solar.


----------



## Scrabbletray (Apr 27, 2014)

@Amine

Solar roadways are a scam. They are just like 1000 other similar fake "companies" who solicit money and then keep it all for personal gain. The old technique used to be to go public and then release tons of press releases making amazing claims that were actually a bunch of BS. This would trick a bunch of fools into buying the stock making it go way up allowing the founders of the "company" to sell it for a huge profit before everyone figured out they were just a scam. Of course, now that we have crowd-sourcing con artists don't even have to go that far, they can just ask people for free money and find people foolish enough to give it to them. IMO such people should be sent to jail (and some have in the past), but 98% of the time they get away with it.


----------



## Amine (Feb 23, 2014)

a1b2c3d4 said:


> Solar roadways are a scam. They are just like 1000 other similar fake "companies" who solicit money and then keep it all for personal gain. The old technique used to be to go public and then release tons of press releases making amazing claims that were actually a bunch of BS. This would trick a bunch of fools into buying the stock making it go way up allowing the founders of the "company" to sell it for a huge profit before everyone figured out they were just a scam. Of course, now that we have crowd-sourcing con artists don't even have to go that far, they can just ask people for free money and find people foolish enough to give it to them. IMO such people should be sent to jail (and some have in the past), but 98% of the time they get away with it.


It looks to be so. That's unfortunate. I was thinking maybe driveways would still be feasible, but yes it does seem to be a scam.


----------



## Scrabbletray (Apr 27, 2014)

Amine said:


> It looks to be so. That's unfortunate. I was thinking maybe driveways would still be feasible, but yes it does seem to be a scam.


If you are going to put solar somewhere you want it high up and away from anything that could impact it. Hence the use of rooftop solar. Even when solar is installed in parking lots it is done as shades above the cars. There are several parking lots that like that around here. It's actually nice because your car doesn't get as hot with the solar panels shading it and there are outlets for electric cars to recharge.


----------



## PowerShell (Feb 3, 2013)

You also need to factor in wind power. I was at a meetup and the speaker was an executive in the electric utility industry. He said as of right now, it's slightly cheaper to produce a kilowatt hour with wind than it is with coal. Coal plants are being shut down as they depreciate and wind farms are popping up left and right. I give it 5-10 more years and using fossil fuels for energy will be out of the question. Moore's law and basic economics will take care things.


----------



## Scrabbletray (Apr 27, 2014)

PowerShell said:


> You also need to factor in wind power. I was at a meetup and the speaker was an executive in the electric utility industry. He said as of right now, it's slightly cheaper to produce a kilowatt hour with wind than it is with coal. Coal plants are being shut down as they depreciate and wind farms are popping up left and right. I give it 5-10 more years and using fossil fuels for energy will be out of the question. Moore's law and basic economics will take care things.


It's not even remotely true that wind is cost competitive with coal. It is only in the presence of large subsides for wind and large additional taxes on coal that the two are even close. The reason coal plants aren't being built in the US isn't because of economics, it's because of politics. It's essentially illegal to build a new coal plants, so of course no new ones are being built. Also, I don't know why Moore's law is brought into the discussion by people because it has nothing to do with energy and is not something that just be applied wherever you want. Also, most of the market share of coal is being taken up by natural gas, so you're really only trading one fossil fuel for another.


----------



## Amine (Feb 23, 2014)

a1b2c3d4 said:


> Also, I don't know why Moore's law is brought into the discussion by people because it has nothing to do with energy and is not something that just be applied wherever you want.


I'm starting to think it is extremely hard to deny that there is no synergistic effect there. Other things I have been seeing lately like the coming replacement of search engines with virtual assistants and other narrow AI such as discovery advisers _are_ going to make the process of development faster, and immensely so. I think it's probably true that search engines and Moore's Law based techs we currently have played a huge part in getting solar to where it currently is in terms of tech and adoption. No, Moore's Law doesn't equal magic or a guarantee, but I do think it is part of the discussion. It's getting undeniable - this is what is driving the biggest changes we see today.


----------



## PowerShell (Feb 3, 2013)

a1b2c3d4 said:


> It's not even remotely true that wind is cost competitive with coal. It is only in the presence of large subsides for wind and large additional taxes on coal that the two are even close. The reason coal plants aren't being built in the US isn't because of economics, it's because of politics. It's essentially illegal to build a new coal plants, so of course no new ones are being built. Also, I don't know why Moore's law is brought into the discussion by people because it has nothing to do with energy and is not something that just be applied wherever you want. Also, most of the market share of coal is being taken up by natural gas, so you're really only trading one fossil fuel for another.



And there aren't large subsidies and tax breaks for fossil fuels? They're both subsidized in one way or another. Also, the reason coal is becoming uneconomical is because we're actually starting to account for the waste side of it. It is a measure of economics to build a new coal plant. No longer can you freely pollute into the environment. It costs way more money to burn coal when accounting for the environmental impact.


----------



## RobynC (Jun 10, 2011)

@Razare



> I know why it will become so prevalent...
> 
> Solar Freakin Roadways!


I think I wrote about this before... this poses a number of issues in that it would actually be exceedingly complex in terms of the wireless and internet systems to make what is otherwise a road work; the pressure sensors could be used to track cars moving up and down the roads; LED's can actually be used -- crazy as this sounds -- to record sound.

Since these roadways would go right on up into your garage, this is very serious and poses privacy issues. 

Disclaimer: I'm aware some members will immediately try and claim I'm some kind of luddite: I'm not, I'm a privacy and civil liberties proponent; other trollers might pop in and try and deconstruct what I say, and criticize me for one reason or another.

I figure I'd give people a heads up so they can ignore all this nonsense before it contaminates and diverts this thread.


BTW: I did not call out anybody by name; I simply do not wish to have the thread diverted: I also would rather not have to repeat my positions over and over again when I have posted them before.


----------



## Razare (Apr 21, 2009)

RobynC said:


> @_Razare_
> 
> I think I wrote about this before... this poses a number of issues in that it would actually be exceedingly complex in terms of the wireless and internet systems to make what is otherwise a road work; the pressure sensors could be used to track cars moving up and down the roads; LED's can actually be used -- crazy as this sounds -- to record sound.
> 
> ...


Robyn, the problem is as technologies advance, they are going to create more and more of these issues. We can't stop the progression of technology.

A better approach is to advocate better management and restriction of the information.

Yes, the government always goes behind our backs and abuse this without authority... but that's my point. The real problem is not that this information exists, it's that we have no control over our government's ability to indiscriminately seize any piece of information they want.

The information is going to exist as technology advances, that really can't be stopped unless we experience a catastrophe that knocks us back some centuries.

It's really more a question of how to restrict and prevent access to the information.

(I'm not really talking about solar roadways either, just technology in general.)


----------



## RobynC (Jun 10, 2011)

@Razare



> Robyn, the problem is as technologies advance, they are going to create more and more of these issues.


And I'm surprised nobody sees a problem with this.



> We can't stop the progression of technology.


Maybe not, but there are ways to speed things up and slow-things down. I personally think the elites are accelerating the technologies that they want -- most of which violate our rights.

There are many technologies that don't really violate our rights: Have you ever heard of dichloroacetic acid? It basically under some circumstacnes causes cancer cells to undergo apoptosis. Far better than the chemotherapies that currently exist and yet almost no research...



> A better approach is to advocate better management and restriction of the information.


The problem is censorship then becomes a possibility and this could easily be used to keep us in the dark while the powers that be run roughshod over us.

It would be interesting if there was some group in congress who's job it was to evaluate technology and regulate it.


----------



## Razare (Apr 21, 2009)

RobynC said:


> The problem is censorship then becomes a possibility and this could easily be used to keep us in the dark while the powers that be run roughshod over us.
> 
> It would be interesting if there was some group in congress who's job it was to evaluate technology and regulate it.


In the late 90's the nerds basically talked about a new version of a Constitution. That basically, as these new technologies come on board, the old laws are insufficient to protect rights.

That democratic governments would basically need an information age bill of rights.

For example, let's say I have an on-board piece of technology synched with myself. It wont be long that technology will read brainwaves and basically function as extensions of the body. Google glass is really the first step toward this, they just don't have the brain wave interface installed yet. The technology to read brainwaves is already available, though.

So if we take something like Google glass 10 years from now which reads brain waves, can the government seize that device with a warrant and get personal information stored on it? - Yes, they can.

Now what if there were a disabled person, who had technology installed to help with their memory. Imagine a person with alzheimer's who used such a device as an extension for their memory so they would not forget important things. Could the government under current laws seize that device with a warrant? - Yes.

Yet effectively, this person with Alzheimer's would in be testifying against themselves and violating the 5th amendment unwillingly, since the technology exists as an extension of their body. And if it applies to the person who had to use the device, then really, it would apply to the person who used the device as if it were part of themselves as well... and then... what's the difference between that device and our smartphones that people take with them as if it were a part of their body? Just because the information is no longer stored in our brain, it now puts it into governments hands subject to seizure? Then in the distant future, what of the people with cyborg implants? Are the mechanical parts of their body subject to warrants and seizure? I guess so as it is currently written.

This is the harry mess we get into with technology, and why new definitions and boundaries for basic human rights have to be re-established.

If the boundaries aren't re-established, we'll eventually lose all human rights as the 18th century protections we have erode to become meaningless. (They're pretty much meaningless now, but that's not so much technology's fault as it is government's fault for breaching long-standing protections. Technology has just made it easier and more readily available to breach.)


----------



## RobynC (Jun 10, 2011)

@Razare



> In the late 90's the nerds basically talked about a new version of a Constitution. That basically, as these new technologies come on board, the old laws are insufficient to protect rights
> 
> That democratic governments would basically need an information age bill of rights.


It's a good idea provided it's applied right. It would also have to deal with the basic function of a technology than the exact details otherwise people would simply modify one small detail and it'd be useless. It cannot be too broad either.



> Yet effectively, this person with Alzheimer's would in effect be testifying against themselves and violating the 5th amendment unwillingly, since the technology exists as an extension of their body.


Good point.



> This is the harry mess we get into with technology, and why new definitions and boundaries for basic human rights have to be re-established.


The problem is we don't necessarily have to advance as fast as we can go... maybe we should focus on needs-based economies rather than wants-based. 

These days we live in a world where people have so much and they are so unhappy and rather be happy for what they have -- they want more. This is a problem in and of itself.



> They're pretty much meaningless now, but that's not so much technology's fault as it is government's fault for breaching long-standing protections.


Of course..



> Technology has just made it easier and more readily available to breach.)


In some cases, it's become possible because of it...


----------



## Amine (Feb 23, 2014)

I think I was asked earlier what 3d printing had to do with solar power...

Printable solar panels, developed by CSIRO and Melbourne universities, one step closer to market - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

Although it isn't quite 3d. But same thing, really. Solar panels you can simply print. That's pretty insane.


----------



## Scrabbletray (Apr 27, 2014)

Amine said:


> I think I was asked earlier what 3d printing had to do with solar power...
> 
> Printable solar panels, developed by CSIRO and Melbourne universities, one step closer to market - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)
> 
> Although it isn't quite 3d. But same thing, really. Solar panels you can simply print. That's pretty insane.


The normal process for making solar panels isn't really very different than "printing" anyways. The process of making solar panels is simple (at least in terms of other microelectronics) it's the cost of the inputs that is so expensive.


----------



## PowerShell (Feb 3, 2013)

Razare said:


> In the late 90's the nerds basically talked about a new version of a Constitution. That basically, as these new technologies come on board, the old laws are insufficient to protect rights.


Laws have always lagged technology. It's just a matter of keeping up. You create a new Constitution and in a few years, it's out of date. Keep the system we have in place, because it is good, and change with the times. Most laws are written in (mainly kneejerk) reaction to something that happened. No point in trying to predict things and create laws that could be a straightjacket to innovation.


----------



## Amine (Feb 23, 2014)

I'm beginning to think laws are just going to get further and further behind that eventually they will just be seen as archaic. 

You know what the most terrifying thing to people is? It's freedom.


----------



## RobynC (Jun 10, 2011)

@_Amine_

1. I'm not generally objected to 3D printing in principle: My concern is certain particular applications of it.


3D printers which can produce functional nano-scale components
Self replication based on the technology
Lee Cronin's research involving the manufacture of chemicals
2. Most people want freedom actually: But most people aren't anarchists and realize there's a need to have some kind of legal system in place. Even if it is viewed as a necessary evil.


@_PowerShell_

How common is it to print microelectronics and chips


----------



## PowerShell (Feb 3, 2013)

RobynC said:


> @_PowerShell_
> 
> How common is it to print microelectronics and chips


Not common at all. Most 3D printers can only deal with plastics. I have heard of some people trying to hack one together to be able to use aluminum and other metals, but we're a long ways off from printing microelectronics and chips. Even the 3D printed guns are made of plastic and blow apart in a matter of a couple shots (and the gun can't fully be printed; it still needs metal action parts and assembly is required with that.


----------



## Scrabbletray (Apr 27, 2014)

PowerShell said:


> Not common at all. Most 3D printers can only deal with plastics. I have heard of some people trying to hack one together to be able to use aluminum and other metals, but we're a long ways off from printing microelectronics and chips. Even the 3D printed guns are made of plastic and blow apart in a matter of a couple shots (and the gun can't fully be printed; it still needs metal action parts and assembly is required with that.


Like I said before, if you look how microelectronics are made it's pretty much exactly like what 3D printing is, just a little more complicated and a lot more steps. Photolithography is actually conceptually not all that different from how a laser printer works (in a really general sort of way).


----------



## RobynC (Jun 10, 2011)

@_PowerShell_



> Not common at all.


Understood



> Most 3D printers can only deal with plastics. I have heard of some people trying to hack one together to be able to use aluminum and other metals


When you say "hack it" do you mean alter the software, or the equipment itself?


@_a1b2c3d4_



> Photolithography is actually conceptually not all that different from how a laser printer works (in a really general sort of way).


Can you elaborate?


----------



## PowerShell (Feb 3, 2013)

a1b2c3d4 said:


> Like I said before, if you look how microelectronics are made it's pretty much exactly like what 3D printing is, just a little more complicated and a lot more steps. Photolithography is actually conceptually not all that different from how a laser printer works (in a really general sort of way).


I think we'll eventually get there but right now the technology is not there.



RobynC said:


> When you say "hack it" do you mean alter the software, or the equipment itself?


Hack as in use in a way it hasn't been designed for. It would require you to hack the software and hardware to put your own modification that would allow it to use metals versus just it's current capability of using plastic.


----------



## Scrabbletray (Apr 27, 2014)

PowerShell said:


> I think we'll eventually get there but right now the technology is not there.


My point is that 3D printing is like the "cheap" version of the technology already developed for making microelectronics. It's not a matter of getting there, it's a matter of we started there and then worked our way down to current 3D printing. We already can print nanoscale components made of all sorts of materials, it just costs billions of dollars and so they developed a technology that wasn't nearly as versatile or precise.


----------



## RobynC (Jun 10, 2011)

@PowerShell



> Hack as in use in a way it hasn't been designed for. It would require you to hack the software and hardware


So that would require both the program and the laser and so on


----------



## PowerShell (Feb 3, 2013)

RobynC said:


> @_PowerShell_
> 
> So that would require both the program and the laser and so on


Anytime you modify hardware, you have to modify the software (drivers) in order to control that hardware change.


----------

