I find this "key concept" very interesting:
Quote:
|
A new direct-current power transmission backbone would deliver solar electricity across the country.
|
DC (Edison) was rejected in favor of AC (Tesla) because AC can travel much further, much more efficiently. I generally trust that the SciAm guys know what they're talking about, but I'm very curious about this.
That aside, I do think that they're being somewhat optimistic in their analysis.
Solar's good, though - but it should be paid for with private dollars as much as possible. I don't want the government paying "more than $400 billion" for a system that won't be completed for 40 years, and may be rendered obsolete before it even comes online.
Then there's the issue of infrastructure - they want to put all of this in the southwest, but use the electricity around the country. That delivery system will be extraordinarily expensive to build.
Finally, there's the issue of security. Not just the "terrorists could blow it up" kind of security, but the "what if it fails" or the "what if there's an earthquake that destroys it" kind of security. I rather
like the fact that we have electricity being generated all over the country - I don't want all our eggs in one basket.
I say build more nuclear plants. Build them like there's no tomorrow. Put in solar where convenient or cost effective - same with wind, tidal, etc. - but we should be looking to nuclear for the next 50-100 years of our energy needs. It's a proven technology that provides a lot of power, with no "peaks and valleys" in output based on weather...
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.
