On Fri, 3 Apr 2009 15:43:59 -0500, "HeyBub"
wrote:

Smitty Two wrote:

A friend of mine had a system put on his roof a year ago. He has no
batteries, so the meter runs backwards during the day and forwards at
night. He spent $18,000, and he's saving $60 a month. Hardly a
respectable return, financially.

Within six months, we're planning to have a system of equivalent
output that's 1/3 the size at 1/3 the cost. That should be approaching
viability from an investment standpoint, particularly with the gov't
incentives now in effect.

The sun delivers 740 watts/sq meter of energy to the earth. At the equator.
At noon. With no clouds.

Assuming 70% conversion and adjusting for latitude, hours of sunlight, and
weather, it would take a solar collector farm the size of the Los Angeles
basin (1200 sq miles) to provide the peak demand of 50GWatts just for
California. 1200 square miles is larger than the entire U.S. Interstate
Highway system. On the plus side, it would leave Los Angeles in the dark.

The only way to improve on this situation is to move the orbit of the earth
closer to the sun.

This country cannot be run on sunbeams. Period. End of story.

Necessity may dictate some solar power applications, but pervasive solar
power cannot be justified solely on the basis of economics. It's
inconceivable it ever will be.


Man will never fly...

And who says all the solar panels have to be in one place? Add up the
square footage of all the roofs in California and tell us how much
area we have to work with. If each home can produce 25% of the energy
it needs, that will be HUGE.