🚀 go-pugleaf

Sheridan Mayo wrote in message <6054uj$ni7$1@clarion.carno.net.au>...
>
>[snip lots of interesting stuff about practicalities and problems
>of solar power.]
>
>The value of 400W/meter square was actually for the UK so that
>included a latitude factor but didn't include the other factors.
>I was actually thinking about the idea of solar power in Australia but
>didn't have any figures available.
>
>Anyway I agree that there are problems & limitations with solar power
>(chiefly that it is only there in the day!) but consider the practicalities
>that were involved with nuclear power when it was first getting off the
>ground. They were enormous and it was sheer political will (and the
>defence connection) that made it happen. Look at the massive cost of
>fusion experiements - yet they still go ahead. I think this really puts
>the problems of solar power (which are largely down to
>fabrication costs) in perspective. Solar power has possibilities but
>by and large there isn't a fraction of the political will behind it.
>
>For what it's worth I suspect that the future for solar power lies not
>so much in large scale plants but in providing power on a small scale local
>basis as it is much more scalable than other forms of power generation.
>I did see something a while back about developing solar cell windows -
>i.e. they are largely transparent but absorb about 15% of the light for
>power generation - the idea being that by covering a building in the
>things it could generate some of it's own power (it was suggested this
>be used for buildings like offices which are mostly used in the day).
>
>Just some more thoughts
>
>Sherry
>

well, what about this? place a satellite with large solar panels in
geostationary orbit. advantages: only 6 hours of darkness instead of 12, no
atmospheric absorbtion, it's on the equator.

then find a way to get the energy down towards the earth. laser, or
microwaves, and then catch it on the earth. you'll have a powersupply that
is "online" more than if you put it on the surface, and that generates more
energy than if it were on the surface. also, you could aim the microwave (or
whatever) to any location on almost half of the earth's surface.

ofcourse this is just as futuristic as covering a whole square km with solar
panels, but it is much more efficient.

--
AAA
for e-mail replies, remove the "remove.this." part in my e-mail when
replying
ICQ UIN 456629
Alt E-mail: chekotay@dds.nl