02-25-2003, 11:34 PM
I didn't understand a bit of what your are getting at at the top of your post.
but,
What are the plenty of alternatives? The biggest problem with alternatives that people often cite, is that they are usually so dilute as to require more energy to construct and maintain the collectors than they can typically pay back in the device lifetimes.
A solar panel facing the sun in near-Earth space receives about 1400 watts of sunlight per square meter (130 watts per square foot). On Earth, the day-night cycle cuts this in half. The oblique angle of the sun's rays with respect to the ground (except at noon in the tropics) cuts this in half again for a typical spot on the Earth. (Solar panels on the ground can be angled upward to circumvent this, but they must then be spread out over more ground to avoid casting shadows on each other.) Clouds and atmospheric dust cut the available sunlight in half again.
So, 1400 watts/square meter divided by 8 is 175 watts/square meter, and new break throughs in solar cell efficiency now boast of just over 32%. That brings us to 55 watts/ square meter, assuming you live where the sun shines quite alot your 1 square meter would produce 55*12 hours /day = 660 watts/day. The local nuclear plant near me has two reactors, of which the smallest produced 3.35 billion kWh in 2001, or 9,178,082,192 Watts/day. So the equivalant solar panel farm would need to cover 13,906,185 Square meters, or 3436.29 Acres. But remember the panels cannot shade each other, so you would need at least double that, so practically somewhere between 10 and 20 square miles.
but,
Quote:As for alternative energy sources, there are plenty of those. The only problem is that they are currently not cheap enough to compete with other sources, which makes large scale use of them harmful to economic growth. Another 'problem' is that those methods would be durable. You can't make much money with a product that could be nearly costless and available in unlimited quantity, so how can you expect people to invest money in the exploitation of it? Regarding the people in the developing countries, who will increase the need of energy because they want the same gadgets as we have, how about meeting them halfway? Or is that too much cutting down? I don't think it is fair to blame those people for our current shortages, wouldn't you agree?
What are the plenty of alternatives? The biggest problem with alternatives that people often cite, is that they are usually so dilute as to require more energy to construct and maintain the collectors than they can typically pay back in the device lifetimes.
A solar panel facing the sun in near-Earth space receives about 1400 watts of sunlight per square meter (130 watts per square foot). On Earth, the day-night cycle cuts this in half. The oblique angle of the sun's rays with respect to the ground (except at noon in the tropics) cuts this in half again for a typical spot on the Earth. (Solar panels on the ground can be angled upward to circumvent this, but they must then be spread out over more ground to avoid casting shadows on each other.) Clouds and atmospheric dust cut the available sunlight in half again.
So, 1400 watts/square meter divided by 8 is 175 watts/square meter, and new break throughs in solar cell efficiency now boast of just over 32%. That brings us to 55 watts/ square meter, assuming you live where the sun shines quite alot your 1 square meter would produce 55*12 hours /day = 660 watts/day. The local nuclear plant near me has two reactors, of which the smallest produced 3.35 billion kWh in 2001, or 9,178,082,192 Watts/day. So the equivalant solar panel farm would need to cover 13,906,185 Square meters, or 3436.29 Acres. But remember the panels cannot shade each other, so you would need at least double that, so practically somewhere between 10 and 20 square miles.