Airencracken

You're kidding right?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_E...rating_Systems

SEGS an older solar plant in the Mojave desert produces 354MW from 6.4 km². The Mojave desert covers 57,000 km². Given a very rough calculation that means you could have 3.1528125 Terrawatts of capacity in the Mojave Desert with older solar thermal alone.

According to http://www.caiso.com/outlook/SystemStatus.html we only need 35.242 GW here in California right now so we'd only need 1.12% of the theoretical output of the Mojave Desert. That doesn't take wind, hydroelectric, or any of the newer emerging technologies into account.

Now of course that's highly theoretical and my math is q&d, but it doesn't negate the fact that solar power is the real deal. Naturally there are other issues to sort out such as transmission and storage (molten salt is very interesting), but I'm tired of people saying that solar power can't replace fossil fuels.

From:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_energy

Earth receives 174 PW of incoming solar radiation (insolation) at the upper atmosphere. 174 Petawatts. That's a lot of energy. Just a fraction of it would satisfy world demand. The only thing holding solar back is effort and money, both of which would be better spent here improving our infrastructure than searching for oil somewhere else.

As for your SUV, I'm fine with you owning an SUV if you actually use it for what its designed for, but I highly doubt that it is an efficient SUV. There are degrees to everything. When I said you were the problem I meant your very short-sighted attitude.

(Edited to correct some of my horrid formatting and love of line breaks)

__________________
"I remember my first orgasm, I just wish someone was there to share it with me..."11-05-2003 05:33 AM - Topane
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. - Benjamin Franklin
Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, & the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opiate of the masses. - Karl Marx
Hell is other people - Jean-Paul Sartre

uncledaddy

I honestly, and admittedly have a lot to learn about alternative energy sources. I get frustrated about the argument/debate over the use of fossil fuels because most argue the use because of global warming, or because drilling might kill some three toed, one-eyed slitherback, or something.

I agree with alternatives because of air quality, depletion of resources in the future, etc.

I just think so many bitch about the cost of fuel these days, yet protest increasing supply, or drilling here in the U.S. It just amazes me.

And I do use my SUV for the reasons that I stated, it is efficient enough to suit my needs at the moment, and I am purchasing a larger GM model next month.
And another "for the record", I also own a Nissan P/U which I use if I end up traveling alone, for nothing more than to spend a little less on the fuel.

__________________

johnnymk

Gee, I can see everyone having to justify their lifestyle.

And then the U.N. getting their hands in the mess as a monitor.

And then the one world government.

LPMiller

then cats and dogs, living together! Anarchy!

__________________
lpmiller
Chief News Editor
Nobel Prize Nominee
Reverend in the Universal Life Church
Once Shot A Man For Snoring Too Loud
Way Too Lazy To Change His Signature

"The strength to change what I can, the inability to accept what I can't, and the incapacity to tell the difference." - Calvin and Hobbes

uncledaddy

Ha Ha! Mass hysteria!

johnnymk

I built a small solar collector when I was living at home many years ago. It looks a lot like the design in the Mojave desert. Maybe I should have patented it.

It had a 4" glass tube 3 feet long used in chemical labs. Inside the capped tube was dirty motor oil, used because of the suspended metal particles. Another smaller tube approx. 3/8" diameter was placed in the center of it which carried water to be pumped to wherever. Surrounding the small tube was a series of car oil filter insides (perforated metal). I got a fresnel lens at Edmunds Scientific and focused it on the perforated metal. It heated the water in no time.

I forget why I gave up on the project, but I think it was because I couldn't figure how to make a sun tracking device to keep the fresnel lens focused properly. And I was working an a bunch of other car projects at the time. Plus I think I dropped the whole thing and glass went everywhere. Oh well.

johnnymk

Aging Icebreakers Hinder U.S. Oil Exploration Ability

from Newsmax.com email:

As Arctic sea ice recedes, the U.S. and other nations are increasingly eyeing the region as a promising source of natural resources. But America’s ability to exploit those resources could be hampered by its aging and ailing icebreaker fleet.

The U.S. currently has three polar icebreakers. But two of them, the Polar Sea and the Polar Star, have surpassed their intended 30-year service lives, and the Polar Star has been inactive and docked in Seattle for more than two years.

The third icebreaker, the Healy, was commissioned in 2000. But while the Polar Sea and Polar Star can break through ice up to 6 feet thick, the Healy can’t handle ice more than 4 1/2 feet thick, according to the CQ Politics Web site.

Russia, on the other hand, has 20 icebreakers in its fleet, seven of them nuclear-powered. One of those ships can break through ice more than 9 feet thick.

“While U.S. strategic interests in the Arctic region expand, both domestically and internationally, our polar icebreaking capability is at risk,” Thad W. Allen, commandant of the U.S. Coast Guard, recently told members of Congress.

“I am concerned that we are watching our nation’s domestic and international icebreaking capability decline as reliance on foreign icebreakers grows.”

He also stated in remarks reported by CQ: “We are losing ground in the global competition. Like Russia, Germany, China, Sweden and Canada are all investing and maintaining and expanding their national icebreaking capacity.”

Back in September 2006, a congressionally mandated report from the National Research Council said the U.S. should build two new polar icebreakers to protect its interests in the Arctic and the Antarctic. The report noted that melting sea ice in the Arctic was opening new shipping routes and sparking economic activity, such as exploration for natural resources.

But a new icebreaker would cost between $800 million and $925 million, and would take as long as 10 years to construct, according to the Congressional Research Service.

The stakes are high, however. The U.S. has “billion-dollar, if not trillion-dollar, national interests” in the Arctic, said Mead Treadwell, chairman of the Arctic Research Commission, which advises Congress.

Despite the receding polar ice cap, large areas of the region are still covered by thick ice.

And Treadwell told CQ that tougher operating conditions, due in part to changing wind and weather patterns, “will only make icebreaking capacity more critical.”