Is solar power a good alternative?

Mowque that why the discussed the Southwest, it rarely rain there
 
Mowque that why the discussed the Southwest, it rarely rain there
But it still rains, and can occasionally become torrential. Ever hear of flash floods?
 
Yes I have...
That is why you place many on roofs around the country
 
Actually It isn't, It is simply proof that it is feasible to do such a project and that it could contribute significantly to the US energy supply
 
Actually It isn't, It is simply proof that it is feasible to do such a project and that it could contribute significantly to the US energy supply
It is a claim that it is feasible to do a different project, and doesn't talk about the problems with that project that I mentioned that nobody has adequately addressed. The bit about solar panels on houses is something not in the OP. :)
 
The problem with solar energy is not finding enough space to put up solar panels. The problem is the vast amount of energy storage required to keep that energy until it is needed.

Energy generation isn't much of a problem. If it was only that, we just would have to put up enough solar panels, wind turbines and so on. Storing that energy is the real challenge if you really want to replace fossil fuels.
 
The problem with solar energy is not finding enough space to put up solar panels. The problem is the vast amount of energy storage required to keep that energy until it is needed.

Energy generation isn't much of a problem. If it was only that, we just would have to put up enough solar panels, wind turbines and so on. Storing that energy is the real challenge if you really want to replace fossil fuels.
I agree. Also another problem is the cost. Solar panels themselves are expensive and have to be replace after a couple decades.
 
Whoever made the point about decreasing solar cost hit the nail on the head. Photovoltaic prices have dropped by half in the period 1996-2002 (last year of available data in my source). The technological overlap with other semiconductor applications gives this field a big boost of related research. Even though photovoltaics are much costlier than solar-thermal now, I'll bet that reverses in about two decades.
 
Yes, that's it. I think it's more efficient than the other kind of solar panels.

Not really. Uranium is not an infinite resource, and is actually also getting closer to its peak. After some 60 years, you'd still be destroying those nuclear plants and replacing them.

fusion. Get on board! It's the future.
 
I was serious! ITER is working on it, and even if they flop, I am convinced it'll be cracked someday. Sure, probably sooner than FTL, but it'll definitely happen.
 
Photovoltaic is garbage and always will be. It's "competitive" in some places but it can't scale much at all. Too many rare elements are required. Passive solar is fine, but is only a fossil fuel extender and won't replace them. Solar for sterling engines has the most potential, but it just won't have the muscle of nuclear or coal.
 
I know you were serious!

I'm not saying that it won't happen; I know people who are working on it. They're pretty gosh-darn smart. As far as bang for the buck goes, well, I'm not very convinced that fusion is worth it as a large-scale power source. I'd be happy to be wrong, of course.

We'll crack it, no question... but I think we're better off from an economics standpoint to take advantage of the fusion power plant that's already up and running for us.
 
We'll crack it, no question... but I think we're better off from an economics standpoint to take advantage of the fusion power plant that's already up and running for us.

Besides Paris Hilton's career, there are no fusion power plants in existence.

ITER is one in development as a proof-of-concept one and isn't expected to actually generate net energy. http://www.iter.org/a/index_faq.htm
 
Top Bottom