🚀 go-pugleaf

"Fred McGalliard" <frederick.b.mcgalliard@boeing.com> wrote in message
news:393D139B.E700FDE2@boeing.com...

> Seattle suburbs. Many (perhaps even most) of the greater seattle
> megalopolis live in single family homes on lots with some trees. There
> is a lot of shade wandering around here, and I would be loth to
> recommend removal of the tree for the sake of the local solar panel. We
> do have a nice desert less than 100 miles away though. Still has a
> problem with winter insolation for solar just when we need it most. I
> expected a fuel cell and solar hydrogen perhaps would do a nice job for
> us here. Have to store all winters power in big tanks during the summer
> though.

Yeah, well, I haven't calculated the numbers, but I suspect that solar H2
may be problematic.  By happy coincidence, I have here a paper from a
presentation on climate change and energy systems.  I can, of course, supply
the reference.  The numbers set us back a bit, and I don't know if anyone
confirmed them, but I will quote:

LAND TO PRODUCE 1EJ [10^18 Joules] OF ENERGY PER YEAR:
a) 32� Lat. - Tucson, AZ:  PV Cells on 2,820 sq. km
b) 48� Lat. - Seattle/Timmins/Chicoutimi:  PV's on 8,870 sq. km

[Water needed to produce 1EJ by solar H2]:
-217,000L water/day = enough water for a city of 500,000

[Which means you have a problem with:]
- Safe disposal of oxygen

The world consumed 386EJ of energy in 1995.  Canada consumed 1.92EJ.  I
don't have the US figures, but it's likely at least an order of magnitude
larger.

Fuel cells are great, but I think you'll see 'em running on natural gas,
propane, and methanol before we use large-scale solar electrolysis.  And, of
course, all those emit CO2 as a product of the reforming process...