Philip Winestone wrote:
Sorry - but I've been there. I was an "alternate energy" engineer
quite a few years ago, specializing in solar . . .
What kind of solar? PV or direct thermal? Direct, large scale thermal
plants were built 20 years ago by Luz, and they take less land area
than coal or nuclear plants do when you factor in the size of the
mines. They take much less land than hydroelectricity does, when you
factor in the land that is submerged by the lake behind the dam. They
are more efficient than PV, and about 250 times more efficient than
biomass. See Strirling Energy, Sempra Energy and others. They are
building a 500 MW unit and a 900 MW unit. These units do not take
much land. See:
http://www.stirlingenergy.com/news/Solars%20Day%20in%20the%20Sun%20-%20WSJ%2011-17-05.pdf
Stirling claims that a solar farm 100 miles square could supply all
U.S. electricity. Others have made similar claims. There are plenty
of places in the Southwest desert ares where you could hide an
installation as large as this -- not that you would actually put it
all in one location. See:
http://www.stirlingenergy.com/faq.asp?Type=all
Wind power is inconsistent (like I said).
For many applications this does not matter.
Solar power - if you put panels on every square metre of the US
- may supply lots of energy.
Panels -- meaning PV. This is the wrong approach in the U.S., with
present day technology, although it is going great guns in Japan.
Japan has different land use and weather parameters.
Prohibitive cost? Yup.
Stirling expects it will cost 10 cents per kWh in their first
installations. Others estimate 6 cents. That's expensive but not
prohibitive. The cost would fall to 2 cents if these things were
developed on a large scale. (That is true of wind, as well.) PV
electricity in Japan is now cheaper than centrally generated power,
which is admittedly the world's most expensive.
- Jed
