who saw this coming...

This concept was also widely reported as the cover story in the January 2008 issue of Scientific American in an article called "A Solar Grand Plan." From the article:

In our plan, by 2050 photovoltaic technology would provide almost 3,000 gigawatts (GW), or billions of watts, of power. Some 30,000 square miles of photovoltaic arrays would have to be erected. Although this area may sound enormous, installations already in place indicate that the land required for each gigawatt-hour of solar energy produced in the Southwest is less than that needed for a coal-powered plant when factoring in land for coal mining.

 

Doesn't off-roading involve a loud vehicle that emits noxious gasoline fumes? And they're worried about ugly pipes ruining their enjoyment of the unspoiled beauty and serenity of Mother Nature?

 

Tossers that lot. Ugly pipes but no mention of the noise pollution and scaring of the land that they create. Geothermal should be developed everywhere possible. It's perhaps the best of all green power gen technologies because of its baseload "out of the box" capabilities.

 

One thing that raises alarms is when the claim is made that something has "minimal" environmental impact. (Remember when Freon was harmless?). Solar power plants are one of the best answers for energy, but even they can be installed in the wrong way in the wrong area based on financial concerns. Fortunately, this is the type of problem where mostly everyone has a reason to work out the best answer.

Example - Banks will refuse financing to solar power plants if there is a possibility of the Environmental Impact Assessment finding inadequate environment planning and causing construction costs to skyrocket...so now the developers try and work with the environmental stewards rather than the old-fashion steamrolling approach.

 

WHAT! Is there not enough rooftop and blacktop here in the USA to place these things?

Placing solar in the cities, where most of that energy is needed, rather than f***ing up deserts, makes more sense since you wouldn't be losing energy during the long distance transport phase.

Of course, if large companies can get federal land for free or cheap, they don't care.

 

I did about 5 years ago!!!

I use a footprint of 750 sq. ft. on my home in L.A, and installed a 7.5kW PhotoVoltaic System. I now pay about $350.00 a year TOTAL for my power!

WE NEED MORE SOLAR!!!!

If every home in the U.S. installed a small 2.5 kW system, that would generate one helluva lotta power. But what do you do at night???

Geothermal is safe simple, make a lot of steam, spin turbines, tie into the grid!! POWER POWER POWER !!! No oil needed, 24/7!

Wind power, Start planting them everywhere there is dependable wind, tie them into the grid, there are valleys and passes here in SoCal that have wind 24/7.

Until someone comes up with a "Mr. Fusion Home Energy Generator"

We need to start thinking a little more than 5 minutes ahead when it comes to power generation, and usage!!

Just some random thoughts!

73 de Pat KK6PD

 

The bikers were whinging about a geothermal plant, not a solar one, I think. You can't just locate a geothermal plant anywhere you please, sadly.

As far as CSP is concerned, you suggestion isn't feasible. For PV sure, but not CSP. CSP has some current advantages over PV. Namely, it's more efficient, you can store the energy as heat, which allows for nighttime or cloudy day power generation, and it's a bit cheaper. Unfortunately, it has some drawback. 1.) It's truely a utility scale solution. It doesn't scale down well at all because there of various technical issues related to tracking the sun and the fact that, at the end of the day, there's not a lot different between a NG power plant and a CSP plant (which allows for the solar to be "firmed up" with NG, which is good from a financial point of view). 2.) Cloud cover shuts them down. They don't work at all when it's cloudy, as opposed to PV, which degrades gracefully.

 

Yes. I agree. We should have Manhattan project level effort to install solar panels on roof tops and cover open aired parking lots with solar panels. I can't imagine that that covering parking lots with solar panels would affect the environment any more than the parking lot already has.

 

very few things are more destructive than coal mining or drilling for oil, especially if the oil is not topgrade....

so whats our options? we cant continue to do what we are doing so nearly ANY ALTERNATIVE is MUCH BETTER than what we are doing now...

i cant believe anyone who think a geothermal plant is ugly or destructive

 

Yikes. Five years ago, I put up 2.5 kW on 250 sq ft of roof (half of my garage) and my yearly total is $70. That covers my entire household usage AND the power for our main car - to the tune of 11,500 miles/year. I could power about six more EVs off of your system!

 

Yeah, we wouldn't want to ruin anybody's "experience" now would we? Keep ruining our economy, our air, our water, our foreign policy, our national security - but for the sake of god, do NOT ruin my off-roading experience!

 

We need to follow Germany's lead - photovoltaics & solar hot water on every roof, along the edges of autobahns. Energy rates are high, but Germany is ensuring it is energy independent for the long run.

 

It does affect the environment . . . it makes the parking area much more comfortable of hot days.


The system above is at the California Exposition (Cal Expo).
Free Resources: Currents: May-June 2002