Daniel, Double check your math...i get 38 sq km per gigawatt during daylight with clean mirrors
On Friday, June 1, 2012, Daniel Rocha wrote: > Well, at 40% efficiency, you need 1.6Km^2 for every gigawatt, So, 30X30 > km2 will do it. Maintenance is hard but in terms of area, it is not > something spectacular. > > Consider the reservoirs of the 2 most powerful hydroelectric dams: > > Itaipu reservoir has 1350km^2 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Itaipu_Dam > > Three Gorges Dam has has 1045km^2 > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Gorges_Dam > > And new technologies are being developed for peaceful purposes. Not in > stupid drones. > > > 2012/6/1 Chemical Engineer <[email protected]> > > Jed, > > Just a fact check. You don't know how many times I have heard that " a > solar site 100 miles to the side in the Mohave could generate all of the > power requirements for the US". > > Some numbers based upon most efficient claimed CSP plant: (approx 2 to 3 > times more efficient than PV but much more expensive) > > 370 MW Nominal generation requires 3500 acreas (largest, most efficient > claimed US solar thermal plant being constructed) > 350,000 mirrors (assuming they are clean) > Generates power ~10 hours/day > > To cover peak US demand of 768,000 MW you would need 781 MILLION mirrors > that only cover you 10 hours per day. The 110Mile x 110Mile plot is idle > at night. With thermal storage you would need to more than double the area > if you wanted to store during the day and generate at night, taking up > > 60% of the Mohave. > > You can double this area for utility scale PV which, although cheaper is ~ > half the efficiency of CSP/acre, in which case you would need a larger > Mohave. You also need to develop weather technology to keep all clouds out > of the desert... > > Also, your "Robots" will need to clean 781 million mirrors per month > (monthly cleaning cycle) in the heat and sand of the desert. Plus where > will you get the water to clean them or power for your army of hundreds of > thousands of robots? If you cannot clean 781 MILLION mirrors per month you > will need more, less efficient dirty mirrors and more space > > You will also pay 4 times more for this electricity than you are paying > now. > > Also, from a strategic defense standpoint, it would be very easy for an > enemy to blast one large nuke off over the desert and shatter all of those > mirrors. > > I am OK with distributed PV on rooftops but get the crap out of the desert > and give the BILLIONS to homeowners to subsidize installations. Solar City > has a much better business model. > > I admire your creativity and regurgitating green fluff but I think you are > drinking your own bath water and they are WASTING OUR MONEY > > > > > > On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 3:55 PM, Jed Rothwell <[email protected]>wrote: > > Chemical Engineer <[email protected]> wrote: > > > You mention projects that are advancing human civilization and many were > great investments. Are you OK spending billions on green projects that > have 1/100th or less the energy density/potential of existing fossil fuels > . . . > > > Which projects do you mean? I am not aware of anything like that. > > The energy density of uranium fission plants is not as good as existing > fossil fuels, because uranium ore density is so low, but I still prefer > uranium reactors to coal-fired plants. > > The power density of solar cells is low but as long as they are cheap it > does not matter. (Energy density is meaningless in a solar cell or wind > turbine; the energy will last for billions of years.) We are not running > out of space on the roofs of houses, or in the deserts of the southwest. A > solar array 100 miles to the side could generate all of energy in the U.S., > and there are hundreds of miles of empty land in places like Arizona and > North Africa. > > > > Are you OK filling up the deserts with solar panels full of dust?. > > > Better than building more coal fired plants and filling people's lungs > with dust. It is not problem keeping the panels clean with robots. It does > not take much water or overhead. > > Wind now supplies 2% of electricity. It could be increased to 20% with > today's distribution technology. That would displace half of coal fired > electricity. In North America, it would be way cheaper than adding that > > -- > Daniel Rocha - RJ > [email protected] <javascript:_e({}, 'cvml', > '[email protected]');> > >
