Sparko, John Reece: solar power not good enough! I: psss!

[Teallaura]

I don't think you get this whole 'debate' thing, Leo. You're being entirely too reasonable and agreeable!


I don't remember now where I saw it but there was a proposal to use parking lots as solar plants - erect a canopy and put the cells on that. I personally think that if you can get construction costs in hand that is a viable possibility. It's a win-win - cars get shade and solar cells get otherwise unavailable real estate. I'm dubious of the giant solar farms chewing up landscape - it won't take many of those to become really annoying to environmentalists and neighbors alike.

[Leonhard]

I don't think you get this whole 'debate' thing, Leo. You're being entirely too reasonable and agreeable!

I like environmental conservation when its about maintaining beautiful pieces of nature, or stuff like overfishing. And maybe getting mad with a community who suffered an accidental coal power-plant sludge spill into the rivers.

However environmentalism rubs me the wrong way: Eco terrorism? Animal rights? Population control? Bad food? Unsanitary living? Aesthetically challenged cars?

I don't remember now where I saw it but there was a proposal to use parking lots as solar plants - erect a canopy and put the cells on that. I personally think that if you can get construction costs in hand that is a viable possibility. It's a win-win - cars get shade and solar cells get otherwise unavailable real estate.

Not a bad idea so long as building that canopy isn't prohibitively expensive.

Its a better idea than putting them in space that's for sure.

I'm dubious of the giant solar farms chewing up landscape - it won't take many of those to become really annoying to environmentalists and neighbors alike.

5% of the land, with a third of that on rooftops...? Don't see why not. There's plenty of land in the US you can't sow crops on. But its kinda fun to imagine driving through the occasional field of blue photovoltaics in between all the maize and the corn.

Actually the big problem I have is theft. It wouldn't be all that difficult for thieves to make away with expensive inverters or quite a few panels if they're out in the middle of nowhere.

That might not be worth it if the price of solar drops another 50%. Near cities and towns I guess you could always install alarms.

[Teallaura]

...
5% of the land, with a third of that on rooftops...? Don't see why not. There's plenty of land in the US you can't sow crops on. But its kinda fun to imagine driving through the occasional field of blue photovoltaics in between all the maize and the corn.

Actually the big problem I have is theft. It wouldn't be all that difficult for thieves to make away with expensive inverters or quite a few panels if they're out in the middle of nowhere.

That might not be worth it if the price of solar drops another 50%. Near cities and towns I guess you could always install alarms.

I suspect Kansas might pay to have them installed merely to have something to break up the landscape. (Kansas is known for being very, very flat and nothing but grassland.)

Actually, I wonder if Edison's original model won't be what, if anything, finally works. Neighborhood power plants instead of giant power plants further away.

[rogue06]

I suspect Kansas might pay to have them installed merely to have something to break up the landscape. (Kansas is known for being very, very flat and nothing but grassland.)

Actually, I wonder if Edison's original model won't be what, if anything, finally works. Neighborhood power plants instead of giant power plants further away.

We used to joke that the farmers piled manure up near the highway so that the smell would wake up drivers who might be lulled into sleep by the monotony.

[Truthseeker]

Paying a guy to climb on the roof to do the work will ALWAYS matter.

Paying a large crew of repairmen to be ready to fix broken power transmission lines will ALWAYS matter. I confess, though, I don't know what the relative cost is.

[Jedidiah]

I've seen conservative estimates that in an alternative energy society you wouldn't need to cover much more than around 5% of USA to more than fully cover for all its energy needs.

That amounts to around 200,000 square miles of the United States. Talk about an environmental horror story.

[Jedidiah]

5% of the land, with a third of that on rooftops...? Don't see why not. There's plenty of land in the US you can't sow crops on.

Depends on who gets to decide which 5% is unimportant environmentally.

[Jedidiah]

We used to joke that the farmers piled manure up near the highway so that the smell would wake up drivers who might be lulled into sleep by the monotony.

Fermenting manure can produce lots of energy. Methane gas can run all sorts of machines.

[Leonhard]

Fermenting manure can produce lots of energy. Methane gas can run all sorts of machines.

And its the next generation rocket fuel.

[rogue06]

Tweb is powered by dragon poop, or so I heard.

[Sparko]

I still don't think people are realizing how much space will be take up by these solar cells and how much it would cost to produce them, and maintain them.

I think Leonhard mentioned covering 9% of the earth with them would take care of all of our power needs?

The surface area of the Earth is 197,000,000 miles. 9% is 18 million square miles. EIGHTEEN MILLION SQUARE MILES of solar cells!

[Leonhard]

I still don't think people are realizing how much space will be take up by these solar cells and how much it would cost to produce them, and maintain them.

I think Leonhard mentioned covering 9% of the earth with them would take care of all of our power needs?

Around 5% of the land area would be sufficient for most energy needs. To put it into perspective, if we replaced roads with solar panels it would power the total energy needs more than three times (not that using solar panels for roads is a good idea).

[Teallaura]

The square footage is an issue for large power plants - they're bound to shade out the Red Crested Snipe or some such and create an environmental issue no matter what land you put it on. HOWEVER, small plants housed on existing roofs and smaller structures (like the parking lot canopy I mentioned) get around that problem and would probably far exceed the 5% figure Leo cited. Which involves a different infrastructure model and the adjustment headaches that come with it - but that much is doable if the tech is ever cost effective enough.

[Sparko]

The square footage is an issue for large power plants - they're bound to shade out the Red Crested Snipe or some such and create an environmental issue no matter what land you put it on. HOWEVER, small plants housed on existing roofs and smaller structures (like the parking lot canopy I mentioned) get around that problem and would probably far exceed the 5% figure Leo cited. Which involves a different infrastructure model and the adjustment headaches that come with it - but that much is doable if the tech is ever cost effective enough.

You have to manufacture that many solar cells, and maintain them. They are basically glass. And so they will shatter fairly easily, and you need to keep them pointed at the sun, which you can't do if they are mounted on a roof.

It's just not practical. You are better off using hydroelectric plants to generate electricity. All it takes is water and gravity.

[Leonhard]

The square footage is an issue for large power plants

I wish I could find the study that showed that an equivalent sized nuclear power plant takes up more land area in total than solar power does.