On 13 Nov 2006 11:21:42 -0800, wrote:


Goedjn wrote:
On Sun, 12 Nov 2006 16:58:54 -0600, "HeyBub"
wrote:


"---MIKE---" wrote in message
...
During the congressional debates there was a lot of talk about
alternative energy sources. They discussed wind power and roof mounted
solar panels. Where I live, the roof is covered with a foot (or more)
of snow during most of the winter. Solar panels would be useless.


First, we can't run this country (or much of anything) off of sunbeams.
There are 745 watts/sq meter of solar energy that falls on the earth's
surface. At noon. At the equator. With no clouds. The only way to increase
that number is to move the orbit of the earth closer to the sun.



The numbers from he
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/pdf/trend_3.pdf
look like somewhere on the order of 4 trillion
kilowatt hours per year, or an average
of 456,621,000 watts.

At 750 watts, 40% of the time, at 40% efficiency,
you'd get 0.12 killowats per meter.
That only requires around 4,000 square kilometers.

I don't see the problem. find a chunk of desert
40 miles square, and go to town...


You mean no problems other than solar is not even close to economically
feasible? If it were that simple, you think utilities would still be
using nukes, oil, gas and coal instead?


1) Yes. For a while.
But more importantly
2) I misspoke myself. I should have said:
There are a lot of problems with
solar power, but "there's not enough
solar energy per square meter to meet the
nation's needs" isn't one of them.