nerv14

So true, even the best solar panels are no way as near efficent as leaves! Alot of scientists are trying to get photosynthesis to work but it is still a huge mystery in recreating it.

demosthenesX

Hey im independent but have a few things to say.

First of all, americans should reduce their necessity for coal and oil, even more so now considering many of our power plants are over 30 years old. I do not agree that we get rid of Nuclear power because it produces ten times more energy than any source of power we have at the time. As for its discards they can go right back to were they were taken from, because you take a radioactive material from one place you can put it right back into the place you took it from.

Solar power is a very good idea for residential users considering that you can make your money back because you can put excess electricity back onto the grid and get paid for it by the power companies. However solar power is not that good for big businesses because it just doesnt produce enough energy to power entire skyscrapers.

Wind farms are not bad ideas for very small towns because they can produce a decent amount of energy, though once again it would be mainly for residential.

Lastly there are many untapped resources in america that we do not use which we should use. For example there are methane(natural gas) bubbles off the coast of South Carolina that are upwards of a mile wide. Another, scientists have found under the midwest a oil shelf(not pure oil like from the middle east) that is 5x the size of the Saudis oil reserve.

The main problem with instituting everything is the cost, Americans have to be willing to pay to change their lifestyle and move away from oil and coal.

France is powered by 70% nuclear power, Japan is powered by 40% Nuclear power. Niether have had a reactor failure.

Norway has a hydroge Highway. Americans just need to be willing to change!!

AzTeK

Uranium occurs naturally in an extremely low concentration, making natural Uranium basically "safe". To use it as a fuel the concentration has to be severely upped and it has to be enriched. Even after it is "depleted", the concentration is still way higher than what you'd find normally. You can't just "put it back".

Assuming we use the same area, solar produces a LOT more energy than hydroelectric for instance. A CSP plant the size of the Hoover Dam's reservoir (around 200 square miles if I remember correctly) can power the entire state of California. Solar power is often hailed as a great way to de-centrlaise production, but it is just as viable for centralise, large-scale plants.

The state of California also has a hydrogen highway

__________________

Shiva_TD

No, but you can recycle it. France does this with their spent uranium rods but since the Carter adminstration the US does not. I have no idea what the logic of the Carter adminstration was but it doesn't make sense to me.

I believe equating of solar power to hydro-electric is a myth. I ran the numbers and they simply didn't support the statements being made.

AzTeK

I was wondering why you stopped responding on that thread I ran it through with your numbers as well, which meant that I used 4 different sources and came up with very similar results that support my statement.

Go Solar or die

Post #84 shows it even if I use the numbers you provided, but I never got a response from you on that.

__________________

Caltex

300 square miles is an enormous, and ridiculous amount of space. The cost would be prohibitive. We need to improve direct solar capture technology before installing any of it, else its just a waste of resources. The most efficient solar capture technology at this time is wind energy, and hydroelectric. Thus, it makes sense to start with those.

Hydroelectric power is solar power. The suns energy causes the evaporation and raining of water, and thus gives it the gravitational potential energy in which we harness. For that matter, wind power is also solar energy in the sense that the sun causes uneven heating of the earth, resulting in winds.

__________________

Ummwhat

I fail to see how entropy is a factor in regards to her post.

Shiva_TD

Fairly true but realize that we will not substantially increase solar technology. That was something I learned when I was actually in the business in the 1970's and certainly the costs will never really go down. Improving solar energy collection is similar to added horsepower to a racing engine. To gain a very small percentage increase costs a huge amount of money.

Something people also forget is that 300 sq miles is collector area. It would take about 500 sq miles because of access to those collectors. Why do you need access? How about cleaning the collectors. Whether you are talking photovoltaic or solar thermal dirt is the enemy and being outdoors things will get dirty. How many workers does it take to clean a 300 sq mile solar array even annually? Basically, at best, you have window washers out there 365 days a year cleaning the panels. It would literally take hundreds if not thousands of workers to maintain such an array.

And let us not forget that direct solar collections (photovoltaic or solar thermal) only works about 6 hours per day but we use power 24/7. Where are you going to store all of this energy? How much would it cost to build batteries that hold hundreds or thousands of gigawatts hours of power? Yes, you could generate hydrogen with daytime electricity for night time power generation but the conversion effiency isn't very good but it might be better than batteries.

I still come back to nuclear being the only reasonable solution to our energy needs. When I calculated the requirements for converting from gasoline to electric cars for general transportation I came up with a requirement for roughly 1400 additional powerplants equal to Hoover Dam. That is on top of future electrical needs for other purposes. I advocate switching to electric cars but the only way it is feasible is with nuclear power.

Solar, wind, geothermal, etc., all have a role to play in fulfilling our future energy needs but they are limited to specific applications and cannot meet the huge requirements we actually have. Nuclear power is the only alternative that is actually viable today.

demosthenesX

Very cool i didnt know that.

Comrade Hentzler

But between the Rockies and the Mississippi there is definitely enough wind alone to power the whole U.S. About three times the amount actually.

YEAH! Wind Power!

The problem is that half the American population is Republican...

__________________


Kingdom of Heaven- A king may move a man, a father may claim a son. But remember that, even when those who move you be kings or men of power, your soul is in your keeping alone. When you stand before God you cannot say "but I was told by others to do thus" or that "virtue was not convenient at the time. This will not suffice. Remember that.

Helder Camara- When I give food to the hungry, they call me a saint. But when I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist.