| Saturday, September 20, 2008 - 07:18 pm |
Yes. Zet. While not a panacea. An average of 4 square meters of PVs per US residence would greatly reduce peak demand.
We can't achieve energy independence purely from solar. The inability to store power on that scale and solar's unique limitation on daily hours of production prohibit becoming a "solar" grid, but its supplemental uses are impressive.
The 28% of the US energy demand, our transportation system, is nearly purely petroleum based. However, solar farms feeding power to hydrogen production is viable. Hydrogen is still the best future option as an energy transfer medium for vehicles.
Thanks. Zet for motivating me to dig a little deeper into this.
I did reaffirm my view that biomass is still a utter waste. The math has NOT changed on that. But always feels good to have one's horizons broadened to the positive and side of hope.
Upon internalizing this new data, however. I am am even more pissed off. This urination competition between entrenched business interests and fanatical environuts is slowing progress to a crawl. F@#$ing special interest groups that won't compromise one damned inch.
So with increased fission plants coupled with solar and transitioning to Hydrogen for fuel, we COULD have energy independence on a fairly short time frame. Couple of decades.
Ran the numbers from all the US sites and its feasible. The 8-10 tril price tag is considerable, but adjusted for inflation, WWII cost about as much. This capital would be fed into our economies, however, so the net cost would be considerably lower.
The FarmerBob Premise stands: KIll ALL EXTREMISTS
They are the problem and are preventing solutions.
Lies and more lies to keep the population confused and worried. You getting this,NIX?
Zet has just exposed more propaganda from the right to offset that from the left.
They are ALL lying. Trust each other as people to reach reasonable concensus.