[Boot Hill]

SierraWasp says:   "...the alternative energy dreamers [that] believe the laws of physics and economics are a bunch of crappola."

Your comment from another thread motivated me to post this.

--Boot Hill

[Support Free Republic]

We Replaced Patrick Leahy's Brains With Folger's Crystals. Let's See If Anyone Notices!
	Donate Here By Secure Server Or mail checks to FreeRepublic , LLC PO BOX 9771 FRESNO, CA 93794 or you can use PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com
STOP BY AND BUMP THE FUNDRAISER THREAD- It is in the breaking news sidebar!

[The Red Zone]

Based on the above efficiency data, we would need to cover the entire state of New Mexico with solar cells just to generate this amount of energy!

I can think of worse things to do with New Mexico (just kidding)

[Boot Hill]

PeaceBeWithYou asks:   "Got a source or a link?"

Well I didn't when you first asked this on the other thread, but now I do! Thanks for the suggestion.

--Boot Hill

[The Red Zone]

Oh, also this is based on the model of using solar power to generate electric power via photocells. Some of which is going to be used again for heat in such things as electric furnaces and toasters. Better to collect the radiation as heat in the first place, for those applications.

I'm not an eco freak, but I perceive there certainly are ways that solar can help America's energy situation.

[visualops]

Even several years ago, there are self-cleaning systems to eliminate the dirt/dust issues.
It's interesting you ignored the case studies pages at one of the sites you are sourcing.
You seem to be picking and choosing your source info, and you make blanket statements that are not sourced, to support your desired conclusion, rather looking at how alternative energy sources can be viable in a number of situations.
http://www.oja-services.nl/iea-pvps/cases/index.htm
http://www.solarhouse.com

[djf]

I have only two words to say. Listen. Methyl Hydrate.

[Rodney King]

Great Post! The "Not yet" Crowd doesn't understand that the inherent economics mean "not ever", but they will continue to hold on to their irrational beleif that it is somehow good for the environement to waste our resources trying to make this happen.

[marktwain]

Your facts are essentially correct, but you have so many unmentioned assumptions that they undercut your premise.

You do not mention, for example, that the cost of solar power is not constant, and in fact, has been dropping like a rock. Solar power has dropped from several hundred dollars an installed peak watt to just a few dollars an installed peak watt today.

In areas of the country where air conditioning is important (such as the Southwest) there is no need for a storage system when the power is hooked into the grid, because peak power usage occurs at about the same time as peak power consumption.

The area required by solar power to power the nation is irrelevant because solar cells on roofs don't take up additional land, and because no one is saying that all power has to come from solar cells.

Finally, this is a case where the market will decide for us. As solar power becomes cheaper, the practical applications will expand, and it will naturally take up whatever percentage of power production that makes sense.

[E Rocc]

Yes, solar power makes sense in those limited applications where the customer does not have convenient or economic access to the power grid, such as with remote country or mountain top homes. It is also useful for powering mobile or portable equipment such as utility, emergency, scientific devices, etc., where it is not otherwise feasible to hook to the power grid.

There's one other place: space.

A belief in Earth-based solar power as an effective alternative for high density power generation is one of those things that distinguishes liberals from lefties.

"Liberals" only disbelieve in the laws of economics. "Lefties" disbelieve in in the laws of physics.

-Eric

[DB]

Well...

You’re assuming no change in technology. You also show the plants capital expenses to build the plant but not the actual fuel costs over the life of the plant. I have to believe those cost FAR exceed the initial cost.

All of California’s current electricity generating online capacity (52,600 MW as of 2001) could be achieved in a 10 x 10 mile area with the available sun in your tables (201 W/m^2) with 100% energy conversion efficiency. Fifty percent efficiency would increase that to a 14 x 14 mile area. Mind you that the current 52,600 MW is peak capacity not average.

Yes, even 50% is pie in the sky for efficiency. But maybe not 10 years from now, who knows…

I wonder how much commercial building roof area there is in the state of California? A distributed generation system would be far more reliable and more tolerant of clouds etc.

Solar power isn't currently cost effective I would agree. But as traditional energy generating sources become more expensive and with solar energy technology becoming less expensive that difference is slowly converging. If that $700 solar panel at its stated efficiency could be massed produced for $50 it would be a good deal (I’d do it for my own home as it would pay for itself in 10 years).

[DB]

Okay “...mass produced...”…

[logic]

What about Bio-diesel. It seems to me that a great way to remove our dependence on foriegn oil would be to power cars with fuel made from vegetable oil. We have more than enough farm land to produce the vegetable oil, could be done by the farmers that are being paid to not produce. It's much more environmentally friendly, and diesels are much more efficient if the engine is kept small (compacts, not trucks & SUV's) all we have to do is figure out how to make a decent deisel engine (send spys to the vw plant?!?)

What am I overlooking, because this seems too simple to me so someone else much smarter than me should have worked it out some time ago....

[Wonder Warthog]

Sheer crapola. I haven't seen so may lies and half-truths in one place since Clinton wagged his finger.

[Growler]

Let's do it! What else is New Mexico good for, anyway?

[Radioactive]

Just say

COAL.

[Lee'sGhost]

Here's a twist on solar power I read recently (I think it was in Discover).

Sorry, I don't have the referenced material handy, so forgive the vague details.

There's some guy with a long track record of successful ventures (not a nut) who says that silicon is not the way to pursue solar power. He has develped working prototypes of focused multi-mirror Stirling engine powered generators. These apparently are self-contained critters about 9 to 12 feet across. He is working to refine the technology and make them yet smaller. Wish I could give you specs on output, etc. The proto-types are pretty expensive, but as with most new technology it will become very affordable once you stop building each one from scratch and put into mass production.

I'm not a scientist but the whole thing sounded very doable. And while Discover isn't a peer-review type publication, they don't print trash science either.

[mtbopfuyn]

May I hazard a guess that you've never tried solar energy? No, the technology v. $$$ isn't there yet but how about, just for giggles and grins, take a couple hours and set yourself up with a solar oven. If nothing else it might give some quality time with the kids or get them an A in science (or if no kids, get you out of some A/C office into the sunshine). Of course for anything other than smores, don't waste your time or mine when you holler back that small versions like the pizza box type doesn't work. I wish I could upgrade my solar oven to a through-the-wall type.

http://solarcooking.org

[biblewonk]

This is why windpower rules and solar power drools. But thanks for the platform.

[LN2Campy]

That efficiency % is disingenous at best: the largest "loss" of energy is atmospheric absorption. I would argue that since solar power is only collected once it has already passed through the atmosphere, this "loss"
really isn't a loss at all.

Considering the necessary military expenditures for protecting our access to overseas crude, the pittance in subsidies allocated to solar power is miniscule.