Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
Quote: In my opinion they should have solar farms all over the South and Southwest. |
Quoting AirTranTUS (Reply 1): which isn't economical considering what else the land could be used for. |
Quoting Asuflyer05 (Reply 3): There's a whole lot of open desert in Arizona. |
Quoting AirTranTUS (Reply 1): Powering a larger city like Tucson would require at least 10 sq. mi. of solar cells, which isn't economical considering what else the land could be used for. |
Quoting TUSaadvantage (Reply 8): Didn't think 70,000 houses were even in that region. |
Quoting Yellowstone (Reply 6): photovoltaic cells |
Quoting Galapagapop (Reply 5): And I'm sure the desert really wants to be transformed to solar, the ecosystem doesn't need that sunlight or land, as it's all desert right? What people need to understand about renewable energy is that unless it replaces other sources 1 for 1, it's merely expanding and enabling our energy use to grow excessively. By adding all this capacity, it's simply enabling more power consumption from an area of the country that is already straining natural resources beyond their limits already. Personally I'd like to see that area of the country start to reduce general consumption across the board, from electricity to water, no one said that people have to live in the desert |
Quoting Mt99 (Reply 10):
Sounds more plausible than Wind. |
Quoting Flighty (Reply 13):
Wind is not only plausible, it's lighting people's homes as we speak. |
Quoting Asuflyer05 (Reply 11): How does solar power strain natural resources? Power consumption is growing because the population is growing. |
Quoting Galapagapop (Reply 5): And I'm sure the desert really wants to be transformed to solar, the ecosystem doesn't need that sunlight or land, as it's all desert right? |
Quoting Fumanchewd (Reply 16):
Instead, lets dam up another river or build some more coal burners. Yeah sure |
Quoting Galapagapop (Reply 17): My point is that this area of the country already uses more regional resources than are currently available and as a result much of the ecosystem is stressed as it is. The strategy should be reducing consumption per household, reducing overall consumption, and eventually going to environmentally friendly power generation sources. Adding a 3 sq mile solar plant is nice, but it addresses the problem in the wrong area and at the wrong time. By adding to the capacity it only helps to subsidize the percentage of non-renewable resources used in power generation, which looks good on paper, but it doesn't do anything to reduce CO2 emissions overall, and in fact adds CO2 from the construction of the actual facility to the fabrication and upkeep of it's parts. I'd like to see that area of the country with it's suburban and rural sprawl try and make do with the land they've already developed and try to become more efficient on a percentage basis. Right now all this does is add more capacity to fuel more inefficient overall growth in consumption and add a stable pin to the price point of power, which doesn't help in making people get more efficient or greener any sooner. |
Quoting Fumanchewd (Thread starter): Would it be plausible to build 50 or so such plants in a state the size of AZ? |
Quoting Fumanchewd (Reply 16): lets dam up another river |
Quoting Mt99 (Reply 10): Quoting Yellowstone (Reply 6): photovoltaic cells This one doesn't use photovoltaics though. The generators are steam turbines.. Steam created by heating liquid (water?) using sunlight. |
Quoting Luv2cattlecall (Reply 22): Hopefully that water doesn't leak and surround the solar farm...then it would be a three-mile-island! |
Quoting AirTranTUS (Reply 1): which isn't economical considering what else the land could be used for. |