Re: Destroy this argument....
- From: dave.walters@xxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: 4 Apr 2007 02:10:05 -0700
On Apr 4, 12:57 am, "mike3" <mike4...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mar 28, 6:21 pm, "theCase" <TomC...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
1) The sun is not available 24 hours. Even the "sunny" location cited
has sun 1/3 of the time needed (3300 / 24 x 365)
2) Electricity is a relatively "local" use item. Meaning it's
generally uneconomical to transport over 500 miles or so.
3) Weather systems can produce cloudily conditions that span over
large areas (e.g. all of Europe can have a cloudy period lasting
days).
4) People want their electricity 24 x 7.
Combine the above points one can see the need to provide a backup
capability for solar almost equal to the base load, hence one is
almost creating two systems, a solar one and a backup conventional
one. Not very economical.
I'm all for solar, but the reality is powering a whole country/region
via solar generated electricity only works as long as one has a
conventional turbine ready to pick up the full load when the sun is
not available.
Why don't you build additional panels to juice up reserves for the
night. That's how you manage to get "24/7" energy out of renewable
systems. Yes, it uses more land, so that's why we also have to get
down our energy demands (consumption.). We have to stop using
so much energy.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
It's not just night, it's day time too, toward the peak, after 1700
hours, etc, in the northern latitudes. But to 'over build' as you
suggest, completely drives the cost up that this becomes undoable.
I think 'stop using so much energy' is the same as "reucing our
population" arguement, that is, there is to much consumption. I reject
this arguement in that it has a reactionary application, lower
standard of living, lower levels of consumption, etc when it is *so
unnessary* with cheaper, reliable nuclear energy.
David
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Destroy this argument....
- From: R.H. Allen
- Re: Destroy this argument....
- References:
- Re: Destroy this argument....
- From: mike3
- Re: Destroy this argument....
- Prev by Date: Re: "Nuclear energy 'not the solution to global warming"
- Next by Date: Re: Destroy this argument....
- Previous by thread: Re: Destroy this argument....
- Next by thread: Re: Destroy this argument....
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|