why not just use solar power?

[science man]

I don't understand why we don't just switch to solar power. I know some companies are making solar products but why not all. It's the most new able resource we have. Just because we haven't a material yet that can utilize 100% of the sun's light doesn't mean we should wait we do find one. My whole is powered by one solar panel. If one panel can do that, five could probably power a city. Another thing I can't stand are hybrid cars. Ok they don't completely run on gas, but the do by 50%. I only that as a half-way there kind of thing. Why don't we make the full transition already have all cars run on electric. As a bonus it would get rid of the oil problem we're having because it would eliminate the demand.

 

[quadraphonics]

My whole is powered by one solar panel. If one panel can do that, five could probably power a city.

You drastically underestimate the energy demands of a city.

Another thing I can't stand are hybrid cars. Ok they don't completely run on gas, but the do by 50%. I only that as a half-way there kind of thing.

100% of the energy used by hybrid cars comes from gasoline. Plug-in electric vehicles are a different story. Also, note that hybrid cars are actually less fuel efficient in highway driving than the same car without the battery and hybrid stuff would be.

Why don't we make the full transition already have all cars run on electric.

Well, there are plug-in electric cars commercially available now. They take a while to charge, though, and can be a bit expensive.

But, in the USA, a huge portion of our electricity comes from burning coal. So it isn't really that much of an improvement over gas, in emissions terms. Maybe if you care about energy imports it's a big win, since we have a ton of coal. But in environmental terms, this would only pay off if/when we somehow displace coal from our electrical generation system.

 

[spidergoat]

Solar panels are expensive in terms of initial investment and you still have the problems of variable output and energy storage.

The problems with electric cars are their range, price, and the fact that they are still cars, which require asphalt roads and diesel powered construction equipment to make the roads. Asphalt pavement also requires almost constant maintenance.

 

[quadraphonics]

Asphalt pavement also requires almost constant maintenance.

We use a lot of concrete roads out where I live, exactly because it can go longer between repair/replacement than asphalt.

 

[spidergoat]

I think that's mostly in the south, where there isn't much danger of freezing.

 

[James R]

Also, note that hybrid cars are actually less fuel efficient in highway driving than the same car without the battery and hybrid stuff would be.

But more fuel efficient in stop-start city driving. And less polluting.

There must be some reason for having them, after all.

 

[science man]

You drastically underestimate the energy demands of a city.

Fine. However many solar panels there needs to be to power a city, it should still be done and then as we discover materials that absorb more sun light, that number can decrease.

100% of the energy used by hybrid cars comes from gasoline. Plug-in electric vehicles are a different story. Also, note that hybrid cars are actually less fuel efficient in highway driving than the same car without the battery and hybrid stuff would be.

Ha. that just makes my point even stronger because it shows how hybrids aren't much of an improvement.

Well, there are plug-in electric cars commercially available now. They take a while to charge, though, and can be a bit expensive.

Not really. Take a look at this. Watch the video. http://www.teslamotors.com/goelectric/charging

But, in the USA, a huge portion of our electricity comes from burning coal. So it isn't really that much of an improvement over gas, in emissions terms. Maybe if you care about energy imports it's a big win, since we have a ton of coal. But in environmental terms, this would only pay off if/when we somehow displace coal from our electrical generation system.

That's what needs to be changed. All electric should come from sun light, not coal.

 

[cosmictraveler]

I don't understand why we don't just switch to solar power.

Do you realize that the most advanced solar panels today are only about 40 percent efficient?

Do you also realize that on very cloudy, overcast and stormy days there's no sunlight to produce power?

There's also that real bitch of nighttime as well.

 

[billvon]

I don't understand why we don't just switch to solar power.

Cost, storage and weather would be three big ones.

I know some companies are making solar products but why not all.

Because some people prefer things like food and clothing to solar power, perhaps?

Just because we haven't a material yet that can utilize 100% of the sun's light doesn't mean we should wait we do find one.

???

My whole is powered by one solar panel.

My outside lights are powered by one solar panel. But that's a far cry from powering a city.

Another thing I can't stand are hybrid cars. Ok they don't completely run on gas, but the do by 50%. I only that as a half-way there kind of thing. Why don't we make the full transition already have all cars run on electric. As a bonus it would get rid of the oil problem we're having because it would eliminate the demand.

Because if we did that right now we wouldn't have enough generation capability to charge them all.

 

[quadraphonics]

But more fuel efficient in stop-start city driving.

Which begs the question of what combination of stop-and-go vs. freeway driving one does. In my part of the world, freeway driving is a very large component of the miles your average motorist puts on their car. For many commuters who live in the exurbs, it's a sizeable majority of their driving. I have personally known people who purchased Priuses to get better mileage, only to find that they consume more gas than their previous cars. Those who do city driving almost exclusively could do far, far better by buying a scooter or motorcycle instead of a hybrid.

Moreover, even the gains in stop-and-go city driving are highly dependent on driving style. If you drive your hybrid aggressively, it will again get worse city mileage than many "gas-hog" sports cars for comparable performance (since this will amount to very mellow driving of the sports car). Since the fuel efficiency of any car is highly dependent on driving style, it may well be that adding fuel-consumption guages to the dashboards of ICE cars is a more effective means of increasing efficiency than installing hundreds of pounds of batteries and electrical machinery. Using smaller, lighter engines with turbochargers has also become a popular way for manufacturers to boost fuel efficiency for much less cost than a hybrid system.

And less polluting.

As to pollution: it remains unclear to me whether the small gap between the fuel efficiency of hybrids and that of the most-efficient ICE-only cars adds up to less overall pollution, given the pollution incurred by the production and disposal of the extra components in the hybrid (particularly, the batteries). There's also the pollution costs of people buying new hybrid cars, who would not otherwise have replaced their ICE cars - the carbon and other pollution associated with the production of a new car is massive, and takes many many years to offset via increased fuel efficiency. For the vast majority of people, the greenest car buying decision they could make would be to keep their current cars as long as possible, and drive in a mellow style.

There must be some reason for having them, after all.

The main one where I live seems to be to prove to strangers that you are of a certain laudable political consciousness. It's like the anti-Hummer. Which makes for lots of laughs when you see them fly past you on the freeway at 90mph, or floor the accelerator at every intersection.

As someone who cares more about results than purchasing cars to show off how environmentally conscious I am, I went the effective route: I moved close to work and started riding a bike instead of driving. That probably saved more fuel in a single year than a Prius driver will save in their entire life.

 

[quadraphonics]

Fine. However many solar panels there needs to be to power a city, it should still be done and then as we discover materials that absorb more sun light, that number can decrease.

And cities in locations that don't get a lot of regular, strong sunlight (i.e., everywhere in the USA except for the Southwest and maybe Florida): what are they supposed to do?

Ha. that just makes my point even stronger because it shows how hybrids aren't much of an improvement.

Yep.

Not really. Take a look at this. Watch the video.

Err, if you read that material closely, you'll notice that it takes all night to charge one of those things up to full. It takes an entire hour with the highest-capacity charging system just to get enough juice to travel 50 miles.

Electric cars are good as local commuter cars. You charge it up overnight, and you drive to work and back in the day. But if you want to go on a road trip, you're screwed. You'll run the charge out after a few hours, and then be stuck overnight to recharge.

 

[science man]

And cities in locations that don't get a lot of regular, strong sunlight (i.e., everywhere in the USA except for the Southwest and maybe Florida): what are they supposed to do?

hmmm I had to think for a sec but I do have a solution for that. Build extra solar panels in the sunny regions for the non-sunny regions. (sure long wires would have to be built but hey, that's what was done for the wired telephones.)

Err, if you read that material closely, you'll notice that it takes all night to charge one of those things up to full. It takes an entire hour with the highest-capacity charging system just to get enough juice to travel 50 miles.

Electric cars are good as local commuter cars. You charge it up overnight, and you drive to work and back in the day. But if you want to go on a road trip, you're screwed. You'll run the charge out after a few hours, and then be stuck overnight to recharge.

hmmm ok I guess you got me on this one, unless we just make them hydro-powered. Wait, what's the name of the material that runs off of its own energy? Is that what nuclear power is?

 

[Me-Ki-Gal]

hmmm I had to think for a sec but I do have a solution for that. Build extra solar panels in the sunny regions for the non-sunny regions. (sure long wires would have to be built but hey, that's what was done for the wired telephones.)




hmmm ok I guess you got me on this one, unless we just make them hydro-powered. Wait, what's the name of the material that runs off of its own energy? Is that what nuclear power is?

Passive solar is viable in places were deep freeze is not a big concern . Photo Voltaic is a different thing all together . They brake down after 15 to 20 years and are extremely cost Prohibitive . O.K. for the average American cause of the glutenous life style they must live cause of cultural pressures ( Taking showers every day , dressing for success , being as good as a Joneser, major consumer lifestyles and the likes ) There electrical needs are so great they would need about $17,000 dollars to put in Photo Voltaic system . Most American budgets are stretched to the max already from there normal glutinous lifestyle demanded by peer pressure to be successful. Some people do it anyway out of perceived social responsibility. They loss a lot of money doing it sense the cost difference will never have a pay back financially. Do they help the environment by doing there civic duty of trying to stave off devastating environmental degradation. I doubt it , for they are lone wolfs for the most part , cause most care more about the money and there personal life than future environments. Lone wolfs can make a statement and in the long run may even create a movement by many others. The thing is if you don't have the money you not getting the product and in that case you better just practice energy conservation as best you can . Maybe skip a show once and a while . Turn off all the power in the house and go to river for the day . Ride your bike to the river and leave the car at home . Donate a couple days a week to non electrical and gasoline usage . Lots of little things add up to a bigger savings . It is like a cost brake down of a new building under construction . If you got 30 line items and you decide to upgrade product on 20 of the line items by 200 dollars don't be surprised when it cost you more money then the contract originally signed . Lots of small things add up to bigger things

 

[cosmictraveler]

Space-based solar power (SBSP) is the concept of collecting solar power in space for use on Earth.

SBSP would differ from current solar collection methods in that the means used to collect energy would reside on an orbiting satellite instead of on Earth's surface.Such a system would introduce several key benefits over current methods, including:

Higher collection rate: In space, transmission of solar energy is unaffected by the filtering effects of atmospheric gasses. Consequently, collection in orbit is approximately 144% of the maximum attainable on Earth's surface.
Longer collection period: Orbiting satellites can be exposed to a consistently high degree of solar radiation, generally for 24 hours per day, whereas surface panels can collect for 12 hours per day at most.


http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sour...j-3wDQ&usg=AFQjCNEJN7hQpjnLfQ_pHczpxxeSxdqKCQ



Space-based solar power would use kilometre-sized solar panel arrays to gather sunlight in orbit. It would then beam power down to Earth in the form of microwaves or a laser, which would be collected in antennas on the ground and then converted to electricity. Unlike solar panels based on the ground, solar power satellites placed in geostationary orbit above the Earth could operate at night and during cloudy conditions.

"We think we can be a catalyst to make this technology advance," said US Marine Corps lieutenant colonel Paul Damphousse of the NSSO at a press conference yesterday in Washington, DC, US.

The NSSO report (pdf) recommends that the US government spend $10 billion over the next 10 years to build a test satellite capable of beaming 10 megawatts of electric power down to Earth.





http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sour...j-3wDQ&usg=AFQjCNExNkRn8gvPgq9zDgq-Fy804PNruA

 

[science man]

Space-based solar power (SBSP) is the concept of collecting solar power in space for use on Earth.

SBSP would differ from current solar collection methods in that the means used to collect energy would reside on an orbiting satellite instead of on Earth's surface.Such a system would introduce several key benefits over current methods, including:

Higher collection rate: In space, transmission of solar energy is unaffected by the filtering effects of atmospheric gasses. Consequently, collection in orbit is approximately 144% of the maximum attainable on Earth's surface.
Longer collection period: Orbiting satellites can be exposed to a consistently high degree of solar radiation, generally for 24 hours per day, whereas surface panels can collect for 12 hours per day at most.


http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sour...j-3wDQ&usg=AFQjCNEJN7hQpjnLfQ_pHczpxxeSxdqKCQ



Space-based solar power would use kilometre-sized solar panel arrays to gather sunlight in orbit. It would then beam power down to Earth in the form of microwaves or a laser, which would be collected in antennas on the ground and then converted to electricity. Unlike solar panels based on the ground, solar power satellites placed in geostationary orbit above the Earth could operate at night and during cloudy conditions.

"We think we can be a catalyst to make this technology advance," said US Marine Corps lieutenant colonel Paul Damphousse of the NSSO at a press conference yesterday in Washington, DC, US.

The NSSO report (pdf) recommends that the US government spend $10 billion over the next 10 years to build a test satellite capable of beaming 10 megawatts of electric power down to Earth.





http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sour...j-3wDQ&usg=AFQjCNExNkRn8gvPgq9zDgq-Fy804PNruA

Great solution, but how do we bring the power that the satellite receives back down to Earth?

 

[spidergoat]

hmmm I had to think for a sec but I do have a solution for that. Build extra solar panels in the sunny regions for the non-sunny regions. (sure long wires would have to be built but hey, that's what was done for the wired telephones.)...

Transmission losses would add up. Also, it's often impractical to build transmission lines between some places, often it would have to cross a residential area or a wilderness park. It's also extremely expensive, and the Cons don't want to raise taxes.

 

[sikander]

We cant use only solar power as we require billions of solar panels to turn solar energy to useful energy for human consumption . But we dont have that much space and money to set up so many panels .

 

[cosmictraveler]

Great solution, but how do we bring the power that the satellite receives back down to Earth?

There would be a tracking reciever dish located anywhere they want to build it. That could be located by an existing power plant to tie directly into the electrical grid very easily at that point.

 

[billvon]

We cant use only solar power as we require billions of solar panels to turn solar energy to useful energy for human consumption . But we dont have that much space and money to set up so many panels .

You could generate every bit of electrical power the US needed from a desert solar array 100 miles on a side. There are practical problems, of course (storage and distribution) but lack of space is not one of them.

 

[adoucette]

CSP is more promising than PV, and you'd need about 20% more space than that (which is not a lot more) and energy storage is a HUGE problem and would also take up a lot of space, but your general point is valid.

Of course electricity only represents about 40% of our energy use.

http://www.nrel.gov/csp/pdfs/32160.pdf

See Exhibit 21 for power vs space requirements of CSP