On Fri, 3 Apr 2009 18:32:35 -0500, "HeyBub"
wrote:

wrote:

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.

That could work, but there are unintended consequences and the unknown
unknowns.

Just one example: The most common event requiring emergency room treatment
is a fall. Now figure 500,000 middle-aged men going up on their roof a
couple of times a year in Los Angeles to remove leaves (or snow in Chicago)
and you're looking at a significant expense.

What you COULD do is require at least a three-story house as a requirement
for a solar panel. That way, if there's a fall, at least there wouldn't be
an emergency-room visit...

In place of 500,000 solar panels, the good folks in Los Angeles could
probably build a couple of 10 Gigawatt nuclear power plants cheaper. And
have fewer falls.


Talk about the possibility of unintended consequences! LOL