why not just use solar power?

[science man]

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.

If transmission losses would frequently happen, why haven't they happened with wired telephones? (but I'm excluding the financial problems)

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.

Well then, there you go. The UN should get to work on this.

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.

This would be a great back up plan if the satellite idea doesn't work.

 

[quadraphonics]

Transmission losses would add up.

They're no big deal if you use DC transmission lines. But this makes the equipment at the receiving end more expensive - and can make it uneconomical to use the power in areas nearby the source, paradoxically.

 

[Me-Ki-Gal]

Blue Marble !! Does that mean anything to you guys? I think they got something going . Attack dogs attack ! Anybody ?

 

[quadraphonics]

If transmission losses would frequently happen, why haven't they happened with wired telephones?

They do happen with wired telephones. Or, did. These days the long-haul stuff is all fiber-optics and satellite relay. But it's important to keep in mind that there are many major differences between signal transmission (like a telephone) and power transmission. A bit of power loss in signal transmission isn't a big deal - you want the signal, not the power. In power transmission, it eats directly into your bottom line.

 

[science man]

They do happen with wired telephones. Or, did. These days the long-haul stuff is all fiber-optics and satellite relay. But it's important to keep in mind that there are many major differences between signal transmission (like a telephone) and power transmission. A bit of power loss in signal transmission isn't a big deal - you want the signal, not the power. In power transmission, it eats directly into your bottom line.

oh ok well what about cosmictraveler's idea? Will that work?

 

[cosmictraveler]

Just imagine terrorists getting the access codes to a microwave transmitting satellite then using it to beam that energy directly at some place other than the receiving dish. It would fry a city in minutes!

Imagine if the satellite was hit by space debris and knocked out of its position, there would be another catastrophe as well. There are many problems transmitting any type of microwave power supply from orbit so I really don't think that the military would ever let that idea get into space.

 

[science man]

Just imagine terrorists getting the access codes to a microwave transmitting satellite then using it to beam that energy directly at some place other than the receiving dish. It would fry a city in minutes!

Imagine if the satellite was hit by space debris and knocked out of its position, there would be another catastrophe as well. There are many problems transmitting any type of microwave power supply from orbit so I really don't think that the military would ever let that idea get into space.

:bawl:

 

[quadraphonics]

oh ok well what about cosmictraveler's idea? Will that work?

It's not impossible, but I think such things are still a long way from being practically feasible. It would be very expensive to construct, maintain and operate such large facilities in orbit, and there are a variety of throny issues with beaming the power back to Earth. The thing could even potentially run into problems with agreements against space weapons - it's essentially a giant space-powered death ray, if you point the power beam at something other than the receiver. It would also be pretty easy for an enemy to destroy with a few missiles, causing devastating damage to your economy.

But if the day comes when we have space elevators providing cheap transport to orbit, then the construction/maintenance aspect starts to look more do-able. The power transmission and vulnerability (to attack and to space debris and the like) are more vexing issues.

Another general point I'd make is that future power systems need to be diversified and resilient. It won't really do to solve everything with a single silver-bullet power source (if that's even possible), since that leaves you with a very vulnerable system. Some robust combination of various distributed power sources is preferable - some solar here, some wind there, etc.

 

[ElectricFetus]

Solar power is the most scalable and cheapest alternative energy source once the manufacture infrastructure is in place. At the present rate of solar power pricing drop it will be as cheap as coal by 2020[1], and that is supposedly a pessimistic estimate[2]. Companies like nanosolar have been producing printed thin-film solar panels already at prices competitive with coal, so they claim.[3]

But to handle a totally solar energy system we will need to rebuild our electric grid with extensive energy storage systems to make up for the intermittent power supply.[4] Perhaps electric cars could provide the grid load stabilization by charging when the grid allows them and even provide power back into the grid.[5]

[1]:http://uk.ibtimes.com/articles/2011...itive-with-coal-some-places-dropping-fast.htm
[2]:http://techpulse360.com/2010/05/11/solar-costs-will-match-coal-in-10-years-pessimistic-study-says/
[3]:http://www.nanosolar.com/
[4]:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smart_grid
[5]:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicle-to-grid

 

[scheherazade]

There are a few people in the far north with stand alone power systems.

1) There are expensive to install.
2) They require regular maintenance.
3) The deep cell batteries required for power storage eventually become a problem to dispose of.
4) A back -up generator is needed for certain times of the year.
5) The amount of energy these systems can produce falls far short of what our gluttonous lifestyle uses.

How many of the following appliances do most people have?
1) Electric heat or airconditioning, depending on climate.
2) Hot running water.
3) Cooking stove
4) Refrigeration and/or deep freeze
5) Indoor/outdoor lighting
6) Clothes washer and dryer
9) Entertainment mediums/communications/internet

I haven't even touched the endless list of novelty toys.

Here's a simple test:

Add up the use of kilowatt hours in your own household and then do the math to determine and model the size and cost of a solar system that will run just your own household.

In most cases, it's not possible.

You will run out of space or money to set up your system and this is one of those things that doesn't get easier with scale, from a viable/and or cost efficient perspective, otherwise it would have been accomplished some time ago.

We are too many greedy people, multiplying too fast, for the present solutions to maintain indefinitely.

The first step should be far less consumption, even as we seek new energy sources and ever more efficient technologies.

Just my two cents worth......thanks for allowing the rant.....

 

[jmpet]

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.

New Green Energy is awfully expensive up front. Just as light bulbs once cost a quarter when a loaf of bread cost a nickel. You have to BUY INTO new technologies.

Not impossible- requires government support and public support as well and time to work.

 

[science man]

Solar power is the most scalable and cheapest alternative energy source once the manufacture infrastructure is in place. At the present rate of solar power pricing drop it will be as cheap as coal by 2020[1], and that is supposedly a pessimistic estimate[2]. Companies like nanosolar have been producing printed thin-film solar panels already at prices competitive with coal, so they claim.[3]

But to handle a totally solar energy system we will need to rebuild our electric grid with extensive energy storage systems to make up for the intermittent power supply.[4] Perhaps electric cars could provide the grid load stabilization by charging when the grid allows them and even provide power back into the grid.[5]

[1]:http://uk.ibtimes.com/articles/2011...itive-with-coal-some-places-dropping-fast.htm
[2]:http://techpulse360.com/2010/05/11/solar-costs-will-match-coal-in-10-years-pessimistic-study-says/
[3]:http://www.nanosolar.com/
[4]:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smart_grid
[5]:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicle-to-grid

ok so basically the price needs to match that of coal and then maybe the government will start working on cosmictraveler's idea.

 

[science man]

There are a few people in the far north with stand alone power systems.

1) There are expensive to install.
2) They require regular maintenance.
3) The deep cell batteries required for power storage eventually become a problem to dispose of.
4) A back -up generator is needed for certain times of the year.
5) The amount of energy these systems can produce falls far short of what our gluttonous lifestyle uses.

How many of the following appliances do most people have?
1) Electric heat or airconditioning, depending on climate.
2) Hot running water.
3) Cooking stove
4) Refrigeration and/or deep freeze
5) Indoor/outdoor lighting
6) Clothes washer and dryer
9) Entertainment mediums/communications/internet

I haven't even touched the endless list of novelty toys.

Here's a simple test:

Add up the use of kilowatt hours in your own household and then do the math to determine and model the size and cost of a solar system that will run just your own household.

In most cases, it's not possible.

You will run out of space or money to set up your system and this is one of those things that doesn't get easier with scale, from a viable/and or cost efficient perspective, otherwise it would have been accomplished some time ago.

We are too many greedy people, multiplying too fast, for the present solutions to maintain indefinitely.

The first step should be far less consumption, even as we seek new energy sources and ever more efficient technologies.

Just my two cents worth......thanks for allowing the rant.....

you seem mislead to me because you don't take into account that there're already certain places that run off of solar power (such as my school)

 

[science man]

going back to where we left off about electronic cars and the argument that they take a long time to charge, for the time being until battery life increases, what if you gave them multiple batteries for the road trip. That way, at rest stops, you can charge what has been depleted and run off what hasn't been depleted.

 

[adoucette]

Doesn't help.
It would be better to have one large battery because two small ones just make you stop more frequently, and thus charging would take even more time.

 

[science man]

Doesn't help.
It would be better to have one large battery because two small ones just make you stop more frequently, and thus charging would take even more time.

how so? What if the car had the option of being able to switch between batteries? Just like how trucks switch between gas tanks.

 

[kororoti]

What we need is solar + hydrogen. Converting excess electricity (when the Sun is shining, but nobody feels like switching on the lights) into hydrogen (by using electrolysis on water), and then burning the hydrogen later when we need it. The process causes you to lose 3/4 of the initial electricity, so you only get 1/4 the normal amount, but that's 1/4 of SOMETHING instead of 100% of NOTHING.

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

You're ignoring economy of scale. Photovoltaic is similar to microprocessor technologies. If a godzillion people were buying them, so huge factories could be built with highly optimized assembly line type processes, that "prohibitive" price would drop quite a bit.

It's just like how owning a big, cumbersome, backpack sized cell phone used to be a sign of wealth once.

Also, we only want them to last 15-20 years (or less). That way the manufacturers get repeat sales. It also guarantees that when the next generation of better cells comes out, the old ones will have worn out and people will be ready to buy the new, more efficient ones.

 

[science man]

What we need is solar + hydrogen. Converting excess electricity (when the Sun is shining, but nobody feels like switching on the lights) into hydrogen (by using electrolysis on water), and then burning the hydrogen later when we need it. The process causes you to lose 3/4 of the initial electricity, so you only get 1/4 the normal amount, but that's 1/4 of SOMETHING instead of 100% of NOTHING.

This would be a good idea if it could as cost efficient as charging a battery. (meaning the hydrogen part of the idea)