🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <342309F2.459A@mail.atl.bellsouth.net>,
John Richardson  <john_rr@mail.atl.bellsouth.net> wrote:
>Hyperion Systems wrote:
>> If we had spent as much money devloping solar and wind power as we have
>> spent to get oil out of the ground and trying to decide what to do with
>> nuclear waste, we would all be probably paying next to nothing for
>> non-polluting energy by now.  THOSE are clean energy.  It's amazing, you
[snip]>> 
>
>Not stupid enough to think we can replace all or most of our current
>generating capacity by solar or wind power.  Have you given any 
>thought to the amount of land required to replace just one power plant?

Have you?
The energy density of sunshine at the earths surface is 400W/square meter.
That's 400 MW per kilometer square. OK this is on a sunny day, but in Australia
(in many parts anyway) sunny days are the norm. The most efficient solar
cells are currently about 23% (according to UNSW solar cell research web
page). Do the maths yourself, but I think you'll see the land areas
involved in solar power needn't be outrageous compared to the size
of a conventional plant. 

I have always been surprised that there's been relatively little research
into solar electricity generation here in Australia. This country has
both space and sunshine in adundance.

Sherry

ps Solar cells aren't the only option, Israeli researchers are building
small test plants which focus sunlight to heat water and drive turbines
like a conventional power plant.

pps The current difficulties for solar power are not space or even efficiency
so much as the cost of fabricating the components - a lot of current
research is in the area of making cells cheaper.