But there is a major difference between us and San Francisco -- we are quite a bit further north than they are. In fact, there is no large city on this continent closer to the North Pole than the Twin Cities.
Before we spend money on this, I'd like a bit more evidence that it will actually work in our climate. Are there any such large scale municipal solar roofs actually in operation anywhere in our climate zone?
Solar roofs might not be economically viable in Minneapolis, but it won't be because we are closer to the North Pole. Every acre on earth receives approximately the same amount of solar energy per year. Those of us at high northern latitudes just happen to receive most of it during the summer.
So from a nearness to the North Pole perspective, Minneapolis generates less solar power during the winter than San Francisco, but more during the summer. On a yearly average, they are probably about equal. Probably which ever city has more sunny days would win out, and we all know how famously foggy San Francisco is. Peak electric demand in Minnesota is during the summer, not winter.
Anything that decreases our nation's (and our world's) dependence on fossil fuels is a good thing for the long term.
Chris Johnson Fulton
REMINDERS:
1. Think a member has violated the rules? Email the list manager at [EMAIL PROTECTED] before continuing it on the list. 2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait.
For state and national discussions see: http://e-democracy.org/discuss.html For external forums, see: http://e-democracy.org/mninteract ________________________________
Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
