[PLUG-TALK] Risk of earthquake based nuclear problems in USA
John Jason Jordan
johnxj at comcast.net
Sun Mar 20 00:07:48 PDT 2011
On Sat, 19 Mar 2011 22:29:12 -0700
Russell Johnson <russ at dimstar.net> dijo:
>> This all brought to mind a question. we have "hot states". Aridzona,
>> New Mexico, Texas, Nevada, and Colorado. These states have lots of
>> unused desert lands. Why can't Solar plants be set up there? Germany
>> beats the stuffing out of us for solar use, and they have a climate
>> like Oregon. Why are we lagging behind so much?
>Part of that was answered in Keith's message. Solar panels in their
>current state are not really commercially viable, and deserts, while
>they may seem empty, are actually very full of life. Covering much of
>the desert southwest with solar would almost certainly have a
>detrimental effect on desert life. I've seen some other technologies
>on the drawing board.
While I don't disagree with the major premises that solar cannot
replace all of our current power generation, and that trying to do so
would have a detrimental ecological effect, I would like to point out
that we don't need to use solar as our sole source of energy.
For example, my neighbor just installed solar panels on his roof for
hot water generation. He claims that the payback is less than ten
years. I doubt there is any life on his roof worth saving. His use of
solar will decrease the overall amount of electricity or gas needed. We
could use solar for many things where it is appropriate and cost
effective. If that results in only 10% of our total energy production,
that's 10% that we don't have to produce from other potentially more
harmful or dangerous sources.
More information about the PLUG-talk