FW: [at-l] Home Solar Power (Non-Hiking)

[jbkramer@afn.org (Bryan Kramer)]

-----Original Message-----
From: Bryan Kramer [mailto:jbkramer@afn.org] 
Sent: Monday, February 11, 2002 16:55
To: 'RoksnRoots@aol.com'
Subject: RE: [at-l] Home Solar Power (Non-Hiking)


The roof top idea I suspect would be too inefficient from the collection
standpoint you'd have to connect all these together and probably have
thousands of converters and other equipment. Every device you add in the
system eats power and so does all that wire. A centralized plant would
be much more efficient.

You also still have nothing to say about how to store this electricity
so it could be used at night. Or what to do on cloudy days. In LA all
these panels would have to be kept clean too, that would be a major
problem.

And if oil ran out, why then there is plenty of uranium, thorium and
plutonium around to use.

Bryan

>     *** If you look at this differently you are saying that
> only 6 by 6 miles 
> would equal 1 nuke plant without any nuclear waste. That 
> doesn't sound wacko 
> to me, it sounds promising! What you are saying here is the 
> hundreds of 
> square miles of wasted rooftop space in LA could be equaling 
> several nuclear 
> plants without consuming any open space. The structures 
> underneath would also 
> become more efficient by being shaded. The American SW is 
> also one the best 
> solar collection areas on Earth. I believe it is above the 20 
> watt per square 
> meter average.
> 
>    If oil ran out this would be seen differently I assure you...
>