Subject:
|
Re: Just Teasing, I Have No Intention of Debating Any of This...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 26 Mar 2003 02:05:10 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1072 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Frank Filz writes:
> Mike Petrucelli wrote:
> > > It's hardly centralized, unless by "centralized" you mean that there are
> > > hundreds of generation points and thousands of distribution centers. What's
> > > your alternative?
> >
> > Every house should be shingled with solar panels and have backup generators.
> > There should not be a power grid.
>
> I wonder how well that would really work,
Good modern photovoltaics pay for themselves in ~13 years and last ~20 years.
Because they're modular, you can scale your installation easily to provide far
in excess of the power you need. Or am I misunderstanding your meaning?
> or do you mean I should have
> my own generator for the winter months when solar is unlikely to provide
> the power I need.
You just have to angle them differently and keep the snow off. You can easily
plan for a system that gives enough in the winter and big surplus in the summer.
> I think electric plants are far more efficient than a
> generator could be (and of course hydro plants are relatively low impact
> [not zero since they do take energy out of the water and do disrupt fish
> migrations, and require flooding areas for resevoirs]).
Agreed. But remember that the flooded area will be habitat for something else
too. The only thing we do routinely that is a real ecological wasteland is
care for our silly lawns -- most of the steps of which seriously harm the local
biodiversity.
Those above mentioned "good" PVs are pretty low efficiency (~9-17% is sticking
in my mind but it's been a while since I did the reading). There are military
controlled PVs that are >70% efficient over pretty tight fequency bands and
> 40% efficient over the solar spectrum. If these were readily available
(assuming that the cost to produce is not exorbitant -- which I don't know) our
ability to farm the sun would be much better.
Something typically forgotten when discussing the ecological impact of the PVs
is that they are plastic with toxic heavy metals layered in there. They're no
cake-walk to dispose of properly and that stuff has to be pulled from the Earth.
Overall, I think that our lack of research funding for alternative energy in
general and PVs specifically has been disgraceful, but I also recognize that
there is no reason to expect these technologies to be the energy panacea.
Chris
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
164 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
