http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/29/bu...er=rss&emc=rss
It appears that without tax payer subsidies, it simply ain't worth it. Too bad. As some may know, the company I work for has product on solar panels.
Will either of you (Atypical / Havakasha) give me a tad bit of kudos on the issue of environmental impact of large scale solar fields? My point may have been different, but it addresses impact none the less.
Last edited by SiriuslyLong; 10-28-2010 at 07:43 PM.
All new industries need tax payer subsidies. Silicon Valley
was assisted by the govt. Oil, coal, nuclear have all been helped by BILLIONS
in govt subsidies.
Kudos? You still havent answered my questions about the amount of solar panels one needs to prove your 1%, 2% point.
The fact remains that solar, wind and all renewable energies will be growing into the future.
Do you disagree? Do i need to post the same articles again?
Dear God, please don't post them again LOL.Originally Posted by Havakasha
Wind and Solar are growing. I see it first hand. It's part of my job.
Another tactic - I bring up a perhaps contrary "concern" and Havakasha asks for numbers. Lloyd, it will take A WHOLE ****ING LOT of panels. If you really need to know, my first shot at it calculated 1.5 x 10e11 panels for 1% coverage.
The required data is hard to find. I found one figure citing land mass = 57.5 square miles, but this accounts for everything. What % is actually usable for solar is hard to be determined. I found another figure citiing global power consumption being 1.504 x 10e13 watts. The assumption is a 100 watts per panel....................
Yes, i ask for #'s to back up what i consider some wild claims. How terrible of me.
So glad you agree that the alternative energy field is vibrant and growing.
The wild claim wasn't meant to be literal. It was meant to be thoughtful, and yes, even progressive.
Reply With Quote