Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Meanwhile Der Spiegel magazine from Germany has produced a frankly astonishing image demonstrating just how small a solar power plant (http://64.233.179.104/translate_c?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.spiegel.de%2Ffotost recke%2F0%2C5538%2CPB64-SUQ9MzA5NDYmbnI9MTI_3%2C00.html&langpair=de%7Cen&h l=en&ie=UTF8 - broken link) we would need to build in the North African desert in order to supply enough electricity for a) Germany b) Europe and c) the world (the largest red square). Are they right? That looks totally unbelievable.
Last edited by Barkingowl; 05-19-2008 at 10:28 AM..
Meanwhile Der Spiegel magazine from Germany has produced a frankly astonishing image demonstrating just how small a solar power plant (http://64.233.179.104/translate_c?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.spiegel.de%2Ffotost recke%2F0%2C5538%2CPB64-SUQ9MzA5NDYmbnI9MTI_3%2C00.html&langpair=de%7Cen&h l=en&ie=UTF8 - broken link) we would need to build in the North African desert in order to supply enough electricity for a) Germany b) Europe and c) the world (the largest red square). Are they right? That looks totally unbelievable.
I think using the more effective/concentrated solar technology (like the new IBM model), and implementing newer efficient products & materials and advanced conservation techniques, that Der Spiegel illustration wouldn't be too far off. The "world" square looks deceptively small though because Africa is such a large continent. Did the article mention the actual square miles/meters that farm would need to be?
Here's an article about the scale and expected output of the new 80 MW solar-farm to be built in CA (for comparison). 640 acres (1 square mile) would produce enough power to support 21,000 (current) homes... if all those homes were ultra-energy-efficient as well, you could probably double or triple that number.
Here is a guy that runs his car and all his domestic power off his own system.
I don't think we are too far away for good personal solar systems. It would be better for people to have their own systems rather than rely on large utilities if possible.
Course in Alaska, for 4 months of the year we need to supplement with something else.
I personally wouldn't get too excited about any possibility of seeing the so-called "surplus" oil revenues used for alternate energy purposes. No matter the validity of the argument or how much sense it makes, the fact of the matter is that If the money is going out, it's going out in individual vouchers. Once that plan was floated by the gov. , it was basically a lock. Any attempt to "take away" the individual cash and use it for something that would actually help out in the long run is doomed to total failure, politically.
It'd be like giving steamed vegetables to a roomful of three-year-olds that were expecting cupcakes...no amount of explaining the relative health benefits is gonna help one bit. If someone, anyone, said cupcakes, then cupcakes it'd better be, or else.
God, I hate Palin. Like, detest her. She's never, ever done anything I approve of and this is no exception.
1.) How is she going to insure that people are going to use the money for energy? There are a lot of people out there that are now going to have state-sponsored alcoholism.
2.) How in god's name are we supposed to wean ourselves OFF fossil fuels when it's not financially responsible to do so?
Her energy plan is a short-term bandaid...it wasn't meant to fix anything in the long run. But in the short term it will help, until a better answer comes along. It's better than doing nothing at all.
Regarding weaning ourselves off fossil fuels: I personally would love to do this! However, as a practical matter, the technology either just isn't available yet, or is so darned expensive that the average citizen simply can't afford it. I would love to see hydrogen fuel promoted and utilized, but I don't see much progress there. The president, and Congress, are pushing increased ethanol use for automobiles, which I feel is no real answer either...because the production of ethanol uses nearly just as much energy as it yields. Ethanol mpg is way worse than regular gasoline. And....irrigation of corn crops, for ethanol production, is depleting the ground water in many parts of the country.
Why isn't Congress looking at other forms of energy? Wind is free....doesn't cost a dime....and they don't seem to be doing enough in that area. And ocean tides are free....they aren't doing much there either....except talk about it. Why don't the politicians take off the blinders....why don't they promote ALL forms of alternative energy...instead of just ethanol (which isn't going to help much)
Until alternative fuels become affordable, it appears we will be stuck on oil...
I heard from a wise man a long time ago that if the question is "why don't they _____" the answer is always...money.
Ethanol is being promoted because it's a simple way for the big auto companies to LOOK like they're doing something environmentally responsible instead of investing the money to actually DO something. Add to that the fact that the big agribusiness companies that own the majority of farmed acres in this country have a VERY big say in DC, both through their farm-state legislators and through paid professional lobbyists. They're thrilled to see farm commodity prices hurtle through the roof, despite what it means to domestic food prices and international aid programs.
Nobody is promoting tidal generators and the like because the big corporations haven't figured out how to make a killing on it yet.
Governments can't promote the use of anything that's "free"... they need to keep us dependent on something. Ethanol keeps us dependent on corn and agriculture (because the gov't subsidizes those huge agri-business corps); and it allows the big auto corps not to have to totally redesign their plants and methods (because the gov't subsidizes them, too). And both auto and agri-corps have huge political buying power... much more influence in DC than the people (because we don't really have a true democracy anymore).
If we went almost completely clean electric, and got our electricity free from the wind, sun, water and earth... then what could they control us with? The only people making money would be the PV & turbine producers and systems engineers/maintenance providers; and there wouldn't be a continuing profit stream because most of those systems are designed to last for decades. Going nitrogen fuel cell has the same problem. Sooner or later governments and corporations are going to need to stop looking at short-term solutions, short-term profits, and maintaining their own existences... then they might actually be able do something to truly help the people instead of exploiting us for labor and profits. BUT I'm not holding my breath on that one!!
Right. And that is why I think the technology and means are already out there to get away from the energy hostage situation we are in now, but they (the govt, big corp, whoever) are going to exploit what they can for all the $$ they can, and then, move onto the next big thing. Lots of shadow ops and man behind the curtain stuff going on. No...I'm not drinking the kool aid either.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
don't get too excited
