People still are not thinking 'outside the box' enough. I'll give them some more time.  There is no need to meet the energy needs of the US, or of any other country, entirely with solar power. The idea is to diversify, i.e. use solar, wind, tide, dams, geothermal, biomass etc. And to reduce our energy needs. I am skeptical about this article, the facts don't sound right. If you covered an area the size of arizona with solar cells, you could power the united states. So each state should reserve 2% of their land for solar panels. "reserved for solar use" areas should be setup, just like wildlife preservation sites. There are a lot of rooves , where the space isn't doing much, and they could be used to supplement existing power supplies. A lot of energy today is lost to inefficiency such as friction, and heat. (The internal combustion engine, and incandescent light globes are two good examples.) Solar energy may be something that can be a means of supplying an energy solution to a particular situation, or location. More tailored supply methods according to the means at hand. There are figures that quantify energy use and suggest how much is 'needed' or 'used' but we wouldn't have to worry as much about using energy, if we wasted less. The research and development of efficient energy use, is progressing ... I seem to recall the same information constantskeptic refers to. Several years back I watched a debate involving Senator Reid (D-Nevada) and Senator Kyl (R-Arizona) regarding solar energy. The fact that the U.S. could provide it's energy needs with the equivalent of solar panels covering the land size of one of the US big military bases in Nevada was not even a contention of debate. Senator Kyl just indicated that he didn't want those ugly panels in his state. Senator Reid calmly replied that obviously panel areas would be distributed around the U.S. And then the debate ended. circa 2004-2006 Great conversation. I agree with Pokkets, as a matter of fact, every roof could have solar cells. You all dovetailed into one another well on this clip. Personally, I think each home could have a combination of passive solar heat (water heating), solar panels, appropriately sized wind turbine, appropriate insulation and air flow. I would like to see nations do whatever it takes to remove homes from the grid...people will be more independent, and the countries will be more independent. I say, the only way you get a job done, is to get started. Actually maybe homes should stay attached to the grid. Any excess they produce is fed back into the grid and the power company pays the home owner for the energy produced. Could help stabilize the grid in some areas. The best way to get someone to do something, is tell them it can't be done. With the dire consequences of inactivity made clear. The only way to find out if something can be done, is to try. The fact that we're still around is due to to the fact that we could do much more than we thought we could, and much less than we pretend. Excellent comments made this clip worthy. Thanks to you all guys. Rwatuny is right - diversification is the answer. In fact, that's what we have right now. We've been powering the country using coal, fossil fuels, nuclear, geothermal, hydroelectric, and wind. There are a lot of new energy technologies on the horizon as well. There's some really interesting research being done on submerged hydroelectric generation using ocean tides. Anyway, none of these solutions would ever work for every area. Wind power isn't possible where I live, because there just isn't enough consistent wind. We've sure got plenty of sun, though! Also, why not put solar collectors on the roof of every huge covered stadium and shopping mall? While we're at it, let's collect... hey napster, im really curious on what you your thinking about. ive been wondering too. i know you wont tell me exactly, but give me a hint or something. thanks. |
View the Top Clips from October 18, 2007
Embed This Clip In Your Site...
|
|||||
|
|
||||||
