"S.J. Van Sickle" wrote:
>
> On Mon, 10 Dec 2001, Mike Lorrey wrote:
>
> > are indeed a 'stupid idea'. Even at the 30% efficiencies of the best man
> > made solar panels, this would require that 10% of our arable land be
> > occupied by solar collectors, something which I am positive would
> > trigger an enormous Luddite/NIMBY backlash so as to make the Inquisition
> > seem like mere cliquishness.
>
> But, unlike plants, solar panels do not require arable land. Arable land
> is a fraction of total land. And the land "used" for solar cells can be
> can be dual use (roof, sidewalk, road, etc.).
True, and then you are dealing still with NIMBY aesthetics. The typical
household requires 75-150 kWh per day. Depending on one's latitude,
local climate, etc. the amount of surface area to supply the typical
household its power via solar panels ranges from half up to three times
the surface area of the roof of the home. In most communities, they are
highly unaesthetic, as are also wind turbines. Such systems run into
significant problems with neighbor and community approval when
homeowners submit permit applications to install such systems.
Solar technology is far too fragile to build into roads and sidewalks.
They'd be destroyed with the first snowplow.
Arable land may be a fraction of total land, but it is also several
times greater than developed land, so the rooftops idea is further
weakened. Clearcutting wooded mountaintops, or covering over desert
landscapes also will run into brick walls of environmentalist
opposition.
Finally, as I have also said, when you pay more for an efficiency
measure than it is worth currently on the market compared to other
alternatives, you are in the end wasting energy (money=energy), far more
than you 'save' with your 'green' system.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat May 11 2002 - 17:44:25 MDT