Environment Solar best bet forward??

Why not start equipping new homes with it? Would make the most since and require less of power plants. In fact, that should be the majority of solar IMO

Just massive amounts of land

Again, it would be better to start with homes reducing the burden on the grid.

large solar plants are not the way to go IMO.

Its not moot. It waste water and some areas cannot afford that.

It would make since that if in a drought stricken area you don't plop a plant that needs massive amounts of water.

 

I believe coal uses more water than anything. I am not an expert, just remember reading that recently.

http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/coalvswind/c02b.html

 

@Rolan I can post later the chart, but nuclear uses the most coal with a not to distant second

@red55 I think you might misunderstand me. I am not a proponent of coal. I work out here in west Texas in the process management/oil and gas industry. Out here, wind and natural gas are replacing coal, however companies or towns cannot just mothball billions worth of coal plants.

Also with regards to water recycling, in Louisiana water is everywhere so I can see your points, however out here their has been a 10 year drought. Water usage is critical. Most of the reason why so much wind, solar and gas is popping up. Texas will have the largest wind farm in the US soon.

You would also be surprise by the advancements in solar. You mentioned shade, they do work in the shade and improvements to solar cell performance are improved all the time. Last month i read about a team at MIT that made one that had better performance levels in shade than some models in open light. You would also find the panels themselves are very durable. Even withstand hail out here.

 

We have a big ass battery we orbit that ain't runnin out of juice any time soon. Why not use it. Why do we have to continue to destroy and poison underground springs, and drill in oceans or tinker with what could end up being a Chernobyl or Fukushima when we have a power source like the Sun? Is it because of jobs? Oil company influence? Misinformation, stupid articles about birds blowing up in the sky?

David Vitter's stupid ass told a Senate committee that Louisiana wouldn't be able to run off solar and wind. Which is a complete crock of shit, I can't believe people voted for this stupid fuck.

 

Where would Louisiana put a solar farm large enough to supply electricity for a city? I mean the land is either lived on, farmed, or under water.

BTW....solar farms kill birds. So there is that. It would be terrible for duck season.

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory/emerging-solar-plants-scorch-birds-mid-air-25017031

 

Before everyone decides they know what the potential is for solar etc, maybe we need a clear understanding of where we are. The US Energy Information Association http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=427&t=3In provided the data below
In 2013, the US generation capacity was over 1 billion (1,000,000,000) megawatts. Energy sources and percent share of total electricity generation were

• Coal 39%
• Natural Gas 27%
• Nuclear 19%
• Hydropower 7%
• Other Renewable 6%
  • Biomass 1.48%
  • Geothermal 0.41%
  • Solar 0.23%
  • Wind 4.13%
• Petroleum 1%
• Other Gases < 1%

Every means to generate power except solar & wind uses steam or water to turn a turbine the runs the generator converting mechanical power to electric. Coal, Natural gas, nuclear and the other so called renewables convert water to steam via heat. This provides the most thermally efficient of converting power. I make this point so everyone understands the context of what is being discussed.

In essence this whole discussion is about cost. Cost of producing the power (including:building & operating the plants and fuel); the cost of transmitting and distributing the power and the cost to the environment.

The nature of AC power transmission makes it better to have the generation close to the load (user). For every mile of line the losses increase in several factors. Likewise balance and control of these large blocks of power is a challenge.

As Red noted wind and solar are limited in where there is sufficient wind or sun and the availability of both is limited and intermittent. It is estimated that for every MW of demand there needs to be 4MW of generation for wind. Hawaii has the greatest number of hours available/day that solar generation is feasible at 6hr. Neither form is power dense enough or available for 24hr/365 reliability the nation's grid demands. No matter what there battery capacity to store a portion of the 1 billion MW is practically impossible.

Other limitations are distance from generation to user. For most of the US wind power is too far from where it is used. I worked on supplying equipment for power plants in the 90s when people were putting a gas fired combined cycle plant at every point a power line crossed a gas pipeline in La. The transmission grid in the state could not accommodate the projected load and Entergy charged every potential plant millions to upgrade the transmission line, SO much that many were cancelled. This would be magnified many fold for wind power. Another obstacle is the NIMBY attitude so many have stopping addition of needed transmission line and pipelines. Finally the maintenance for wind turbine generators is very high and they have significant downtime.

Coal is a dying source. Pollution control has cost utilities billions and as a rule every coal fired plant less that 250MW will be decommissioned in 10 years. When CO2 emissions are required to be scrubbed the number of plants will be further reduced. However look at the table at the top. Coal produces 39% of power today. That is a lot of new power plants that need to be built. At several hundred million $ and several years to build a 250mw combined cycle plant it will take years.

Nuclear has much merit. It is the least expensive to produce power BUT the most expensive to build. It generates the least pollution EXCEPT when disaster strikes. Attempts to reduce the cost of construction have not been as successful as hoped.

Natural gas seems to be the great hope for now and the future. It is plentiful enough here for generations to come. It produces relatively lower emissions particularly CO2 (which can be scrubbed). For the time being it is the best source of producing the big blocks of power required to keep us in the manner we are used to living (AC, computer, etc, etc, etc).

By all means put solar in your home just realize without the government subsidy it will take 30 years to make it pay. (I have run the numbers while selling solar systems). Look at the percentage of power production it has now and try to grasp how much it will take to make a meaningful contribution. It may be a future solution but there are miles and mile of development required before it happens.

Yes look to the future but don't forget that to get there we must keep the present prosperous.