Quick link for myself
Jul. 2nd, 2008 06:36 pmMIght be of interest to others. Quixote, a contributor to Shakesville, wrote a post back in February called Less heat, more light: solving the energy crisis, which does a great job of describing what our real options are, long term, for future energy sources. Not just in terms of sustainability and environmental impact, but technological complexity, cost, and the total energy yield possible for each source.
Guess which one wins on all counts? Hint: it's definitely not nuclear...
Guess which one wins on all counts? Hint: it's definitely not nuclear...
no subject
Date: 2008-07-03 12:07 am (UTC)That said, it's only recently been the case that solar is economically viable. Previously, it cost, in terms of energy, nearly the lifetime output of the solar panel to build it. Newer technologies are finally changing that.
Due to clouds and other environmental effects, though, ground-based solar isn't really optimal; the most reliable way to go is space-based solar. This still requires (microwave) ground collectors, of course, but they aren't affected by clouds, they can have much smaller footprints than ground-based solar, and they don't stop the sun shining on that acreage, so you can use it for other things as well, like crops.
no subject
Date: 2008-07-03 12:22 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-07-03 12:30 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-07-03 12:52 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-07-03 01:16 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-07-03 03:10 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-07-03 12:45 am (UTC)*chuckles*
no subject
Date: 2008-07-03 12:53 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-07-03 03:31 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-07-03 08:01 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-07-03 12:38 pm (UTC)the lessor of two weevils
no subject
Date: 2008-07-04 04:13 pm (UTC)William...Shatner...possesing...me.