You mean their discontinued models, or their only current-model WiFi only gadget? With a screen size that's 1/4th of a letter-sized page...does it come with a magnifying lens too? Sorry, I'm not looking for some overpriced Sony branded gadget that can't even manage to include a cellular modem.
The Skiff would have been a nice start, but then NewsCorp killed that...

If this idea takes hold, can we please see a decent touch-screen e-ink reader out there too? Something akin to the iPad's functionality, but with an e-ink screen...

One more critical point - all of this math assumes current levels of energy consumption. They do NOT factor in the huge spike in consumption that'll occur when vehicles and environmental/housing systems are powered solely by electricity alone. If we even start trying to GUESS at those resulting power requirements, and that shoves solar so far out of the picture, our grandchildren will mock our consideration of it...

Intresting link about new tech, but it was established by an earlier poster that we can't consider the "theory" stuff...so let's put aside that unproven technology for a moment and look at what the Real World can actually do Today.

Under perfect conditions the Earth receives no more than 1 kW/sq-meter.

This means that my 1kW/sq-meter reference is not limited by our technological level. This means that if solar panels were 100% efficient, and operated under perfect conditions, then the maximum that anyone can hope to draw is 1kW per square meter of solar collectors...period.

Perfect conditions would effectively be high-noon on a clear day. At any other time in the day, the Sun’s rays are perpendicular to the ground. The actual amount decreases as the angle of the Sun’s rays vary from perpendicular. Any cloud cover is going to further reduce the amount of energy that is hitting the surface of the planet.

On a typical "perfect" day, one could hope to collect maybe 5kW of power per square meter. Throw in clouds, rain and other typical factors (such as panel cleaniness & existing peak 20% panel efficency levels), and now we're dropping averages to somewhere well under 1W per square meter per day over the course of a typical year.

So, you're right, using current and emerging technolgies (none of which have been proven to consistently exceed ~20% efficency), if we were able to cover somewhere around 20-30% of the direct-sun-facing surfaces of New York with solar panels, then current energy needs would be met. Let's put that into perspective: less than 1% of New York's current direct-sun-facing surfaces are covered by roads/asphalt. Multiply that coverage by 20 or 30; covering 20-30% of the state, and you can now visualize what solar panels would mean as a primary energy source.

I've said it once, so I'll repeat & clarify again, as a general or broadly-utilized energy source solar is a joke; solar has its purpose in specific and local/regional use-cases only.

Geothermal (damn, forgot that one earlier), wind & nuclear are where the math starts to yield more realistic options.

World-wide, wind barely provides 2% of the world's energy needs. Solar power provides some fraction well under 1% of the world's energy usage. So, are you saying that we should ignore wind & solar because, as you say "...until you have, say 2 or 5% of the country's energy coming from something, you don't know how well it will work as a viable utility..." Talk about a straw man's argument... How about seriously considering the proven R&D behind Thorium-based power technologies, before blasting it out of the water...just like you expect of solar and wind power prospects, that have already proven themselves to have lower yields & in some cases higher hazardous outcomes.

I've said it once, so I'll repeat again: solar is a joke. Every square meter of the earth's surface, when exposed to direct sunlight, receives a peak of 1000 watts (1 kilowatt) of power during the day. Over the course of an entire "perfect" day, you're realistically looking at no more than ~5KW of raw sunpower hitting the ground. That's assuming a clear sunny day... This is the raw energy available for harvesting, not some thermodynamics or technical efficiency smoke & mirrors. Sure, in THEORY, only 4% of the world's deserts (which cover about 35% of our landmass) need to be coated with solar energy collectors...but have you ever looked at where those deserts are, and compared that to where the energy-consumers are? The LAWS of PHYSICS do NOT enable us to harvest enough power from the sun, where that power is actually needed, to meet the world's existing let-alone growing energy needs. Solar has its purpose in specific and local/regional use-cases, but not as a general energy source.

As for all that military stuff & weapons hints you keep making. Sounds like you still need to research what a thorium reactor really does. Either that, or start citing specific concerns that are still a valid issue with Thorium reactors - otherwise you're just fearmongering.

WRONG: There exists plenty of R&D thorium reactors; so the physics have been proven. One excellent example is we've proven that the energy from one (1) tonne of thorium is roughly equal to 200 tonnes of uraniumm, or 3,500,000 tonnes of coal. The point is, we have a measured energy output from real-world reactors - not just fluffy academic theories.

Yea, because shedding blood over oil is so economical.

Thorium scavenges plutonium, thereby acting as an eco-cleaner that eradicates this terrible scary waste you hint at.

Here's a recent article:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/7970619/Obama-could-kill-fossil-fuels-overnight-with-a-nuclear-dash-for-thorium.html

I have no idea what this "test" is you speak of, but the idea of solar is a joke. We can always hope to break, but simply cannot ignore established laws of physics - no matter how much we might want to. You want us to ignore physics? Let me know what happens when you leap off a cliff...damn silly laws of physics...

I believe that a day will come, which enables us to effectively break established laws of physics, but until that day, I do not want my children's blood shed over a purposeless war intended to control corporate-sponsored energy options. Especially when strong alternatives exists, even though puppets like you continue to ignorantly spout otherwise. Speaking to ignorance - maybe try lifting that veil of your own, and do some in-depth independent research - instead of just fumbling around with a half-assed read of a wikipedia article.

When it comes to solar, we cannot hope to harness a fraction of this planet's needed transportation related energy needs, let-alone the other energy needs. We're better off using the same square-acreage and growing food, or even growing biofuel.

Now, wind, there's interesting potential there; I live in Portland Oregon, USA - there's a huge number of expanding wind farms just east of me, and our biggest issue is the fact that our current electrical grid is struggling to carry all of this new power.

But our wind farms will not keep New York running overnight...nor help the east-coast survive a cold winter.

Oh, I wish people would stop whining already.

Thorium Reactors consume existing radioactive waste leaving only non-bomb-grade short-term (~100year) waste behind. The sooner we accept that nuclear is again vaible and that the new reactor designs are safe, the sooner we can stop spilling blood over oil.

Graphite foam batteries have a higher energy denisty than any existing lithium-based battery tech, and are perfect canidates for short to mid-range electric vehicles (ie: 80-90% of most driver's needs).

Microturbines enable us to far more efficently convert power from existing fuels...for those longer-distance trips.

Then there's bio-gas engines, stirling heat-engines, tesla turbines, wind turbines, and other centuries-old technologies.

The world is not coming to an end...it's just changing.