Someone cast Wolven Winter on New Orleans!

[chrispedersen]

Originally Posted by JimMorrison

So far, the entire biofuel push has been more or less a sham anyways. The amount of energy used to create biodiesel from corn, for example, is greater than the amount of energy released by the resultant fuel.

The economic justifications hold little water, for all intents and purposes. Pushing very hard on the development of renewable energy sources, should yield at least satisfactory results, once a minimum threshhold of funding is introduced.

And to clarify, even if it took solar panels 20 years to recoup their investment in energy costs, compared to the current cost of oil, it is beyond a win-win situation from day 1 (more American jobs in PV-cell fab plants, less reliance on foreign fuel, less reliance on fossil fuel altogether, reduced environmental impact, etc), but it's also a hell of a lot better expenditure of even say $1trillion, than propping up banks whose greed and avarice did nothing for America but highlight how egregiously abusable our free market is, and how abused it has been.

Even if the expense came out to $1trillion every year for the next 5 years, that sort of outlay would create such a stupendous energy surplus as to justify and allow us to rapidly pay off the debt so incurred by the project.

Jim,
you really need to educate yourself on fundamental physics.

Look up, for example, energy density per square meter in new hampshire - and you will find that voltaic cells will *never* be relevent in northern climes.

Which for example, is what field studies confirmed.

Just like ethanol - (unless you are talk cellulosic ethanol which has some real promising developments) solar cells simply *cannot* satisfy our energy demands.

It isn't only a problem of energy density, toxicity in manufacture, limited life, and cost. But the combination is nuts.

Now, I do think we can use tidal, wave, and wind as renewable energy sources. But the costs of these will ALWAYS be higher than nuclear. (Again, energy density).

At least nuclear absent ridiculous political costs. We can game the system anyway we want.

[Omnirizon]

or we could make a lifestyle change.

but as i mentioned before that seems to be a non-option for a certain sector of the crowd in here.

[Radioheart]

Originally Posted by chrispedersen

Look up, for example, energy density per square meter in new hampshire - and you will find that voltaic cells will *never* be relevent in northern climes.

Which for example, is what field studies confirmed.

Solar can be made quite relevant in Northern climates if corresponding investments are made to the transmission technology and the power grid.

I remember hearing something along the lines of a 50 mile by 50 mile patch of Nevada desert has the energy output with present photo-voltaic technology to power the entire country.

Of course, the Eisenhower era power grid couldn't transmit a fraction of that to anywhere relevant. Given some investment in both transmission technology and the power grid, its not so hard to imagine a solar farm in Nevada supplying power to the Pacific Northwest, for example. Washington State, hardly a candidate for solar installations, could realistically be powered entirely by solar energy.

[MaxWilson]

Hmmm. Interesting assertion. I can't find any numbers for Nevada insolation, but here's a San Francisco table: http://www.sfog.us/solar/sfsolar.htm

At 6.47E9 square meters (2500 square miles), that gives about 10^13 Kilowatt-hours per year (10 trillion). Wikipedia claims that U.S. energy consumption is 29000 TWh per year (2.9E13 kWhs). So I'd say Radiohead's figure looks like it's in the right ballpark.

-Max

Edit: sorry, Radioheart. Wrong name, my bad.

[JimMorrison]

Originally Posted by Radioheart

Solar can be made quite relevant in Northern climates if corresponding investments are made to the transmission technology and the power grid.

I remember hearing something along the lines of a 50 mile by 50 mile patch of Nevada desert has the energy output with present photo-voltaic technology to power the entire country.

Of course, the Eisenhower era power grid couldn't transmit a fraction of that to anywhere relevant. Given some investment in both transmission technology and the power grid, its not so hard to imagine a solar farm in Nevada supplying power to the Pacific Northwest, for example. Washington State, hardly a candidate for solar installations, could realistically be powered entirely by solar energy.

Thank you for beating me to it, I've been following the development of large scale PV technology applications for over a decade now.

Obviously, since daylight is only half the day (at equator, more or less otherwise depending on season), transmission is not exactly the primary hurdle. Consistency is. Which is simple to address, however, through the utilization of some of this energy to perform hydrolosis, and create liquid hydrogen. This can then be burned at night, and/or shipped to other locations for use off the grid, and for eventual vehicular use. The technology for all of that is a few years behind where I'd like it, but only because the funding has always dragged at a minimum.

[Executor]

You are all talking about alternative power sources now, but those aren't going to happen on a larger scale until most oil reserves and alike forms of power sources are spent.

[thejeff]

They'd better happen before then. Or at least be well on the way.

Even ignoring the climate effects, it's going to take time and energy to develop and ramp up alternate power sources. If we wait until we run out of fossil fuels, we won't have the resources left to switch.

[Executor]

I am not so good at Economics, but I presume that the switch should be made step by step since fossil fuels have a great influence on Global Economy.

As to when it will happen, probably when the Big Oil Companies allow it.

[Humakty]

Oil as other uses, such as making plastic, so it would be best to switch ealy, no ?

[chrispedersen]

The ability to transmit power will affect *any* power technology.

Generally speaking, the amount of power received *insolation* is about 1KW/m2, in full sunlight. New Hampshire, and other places, only get that for about 25% of the time. The conversion efficiency is 10-20%, although kyocera has gotten up to 40% in the lab.

So, photovoltaic cells covering 3.28 feet by 3.28 feet on your roof, will generate enough power (after conversion to AC) to power *one* lightbulb.

I have a 2400 sq ft house - call it 250 meters squared. I live in florida - great spot for solar, right? So I could generate roughly 25kW of power, roughly 150kW per day. if I totally cover my house in solar panels. Cost of doing that - after state and local subsidies last time I checked was $28,000 with an expected life of 10 years. Total cost was probably 40,000 but I didn't actually have access to the amount of benefit given.

Only problem is - my yearly consumption of power runs about $1800. Which is why, even in florida people are not rushing out to buy solar panels.

Which is why I stand by my assertion that photovoltaics will never make a significant dent in northern climes.

The fact that you can transmit power, means you can transmit power generated by other mechanisms as well.