It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Solar Power

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 8 2004 @ 01:06 PM
link   
I have an idea that would solve most of the worlds energy problems. I know someone out there has thought about the same thing but i am just going to state whats on my mind.

What if we designate a part of the US say Arizona and Nevada or just find the hottest part of the US that gets the most sunlight and construct massive solar power stations that span for hundreds and hundreds of miles in each direction and run massive electric lines to huge batterys the larger than the tallest buildings in the world (they should be horizontal not vertical). Each battery should contain enough power to supply all of North America with sufficient energy for at least 10 years. I just think that if every country in the world would do something like this it will solve at least 90% of the worlds problems ranging from hunger to terrorism. I would like to know if anyone has ever thought of this idea and if you guys think if it would work or even if its possible?




posted on Dec, 8 2004 @ 01:32 PM
link   
Interesting idea, with two main flaws, ONE is the money side. COuld you imagine the amount of cash that would be needed to fund a program like that, second. Land is valiable, and there are many issues in keeping what we have left. Unless the goverment, really wanted this I wouldnt keep your hopes up. However the idea, is a clever one, if there was a way of setting up this kinda techology higher to the sky, and away from the ground it mite work....just a theory.



posted on Dec, 8 2004 @ 01:33 PM
link   
It is a good thought but impractical. If you knew how much just one solar panel cost compared to burning the same of money in coal we could fuel the earth for 2 times that long. solar power is just not efficient yet panels can only supply about 15% of the energy they intake. Solar want last for long if no one actually comes up with a better design for one. Now using waves to power generator that is a good not costly energy source



posted on Dec, 8 2004 @ 01:48 PM
link   
I saw a program on the dicovery channel about nano technology and how they developing a solar pannel that is 100 times as cheap and that puts out more power than what we have now. They also showed a portable T.V. that you can roll up. I think that when nano technology comes out in full bloom we will be able to tap into resources that we could of never dreamed about. Anyways thanks for the feed back.



posted on Dec, 8 2004 @ 01:52 PM
link   
well yes you are right but do we have resouces to make this amount of nano-solar panels.



posted on Dec, 8 2004 @ 01:55 PM
link   
I am pretty sure we do it's just that the funds we need for it is in the hands of the wrong people.



posted on Dec, 8 2004 @ 02:20 PM
link   
Solar power has been making unbelievable advances in the past couple of years thanks especially to an engineering firm in Germany. Using Solar Dish technology combined with the highly efficent Stirling engine, 100 square miles would be all the land needed to power the U.S.. The DOE and other organizations are currently setting up fields of thousands of these.

Google it, you'll find plenty.

And by the way, solar is already as efficient as any combustion or fossil fuel technology, it's just a different form of energy, so it can't be compared the way most try to compare it. 5 years ago, solar wasn't nearly as viable and lucrative an alternative as it is now.



posted on Dec, 8 2004 @ 02:35 PM
link   
I think our future energy source is on the horizon.

news.com.com... lar+technology/2100-7337_3-5466122.html?tag=nefd.top



posted on Dec, 8 2004 @ 02:53 PM
link   
Killa,

I live in Arizona, and I agree with you 100%. Furthermore, the land wouldn't necessarily have to be given up. If you've ever been to Phoenix you'd realize that everywhere are these lousy corrugated structures built to shield cars from the sun, especially Apt complexes, which there is no shortage of here. Instead of topping these with corrugated aluminum, require them to be topped with solar panels. There are alot of roofs out here too. Tax incentives can drive people to make these changes as the 'Alternative Fuels' fiasco here a couple years ago clearly demonstrated. Every apt. complex in this cultural wasteland would be able to generate their own electricity, and have enough to sell back to SRP (local power). I know two people with two solar panels each on their home, no batteries, but even without, they sell enough power back to SRP where their power bill is less than $100 a year. In June, my electric is usually about $250.

[edit on 8-12-2004 by mattison0922]



posted on Dec, 8 2004 @ 03:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by mattison0922
Killa,

I live in Arizona, and I agree with you 100%. Furthermore, the land wouldn't necessarily have to be given up. If you've ever been to Phoenix you'd realize that everywhere are these lousy corrugated structures built to shield cars from the sun, especially Apt complexes, which there is no shortage of here. Instead of topping these with corrugated aluminum, require them to be topped with solar panels. There are alot of roofs out here too. Tax incentives can drive people to make these changes as the 'Alternative Fuels' fiasco here a couple years ago clearly demonstrated. Every apt. complex in this cultural wasteland would be able to generate their own electricity, and have enough to sell back to SRP (local power). I know two people with two solar panels each on their home, no batteries, but even without, they sell enough power back to SRP where there power bill is less than $100 a year. In June, my electric is usually about $250.


Those two people you know are really smart. Do you know how much it cost them to have those solar panels put on there homes? I live in Maryland and my electric bill is an average of $100 to $150 a month.



posted on Dec, 8 2004 @ 03:06 PM
link   
.
It's interesting that we probably use a good portion of energy working against the thermal conditions of seasons.

In the winter we add heat energy.
In the summer we actively use energy to dump heat energy outside.
We seem to be fighting the seasons.

If there were some way to contain/store the heat energy of summer for the winter we could at least reduce our energy consumption for heating homes.
(spacey, i know, but there might be something)

Other thoughts:
I have thought about a housepaint that changes from black to white at about 65 or 70 degrees. (passive solar)

Also verticle blinds that are black on one side and white on the other.
Face white [reflective] out when it is [too] warm and black [light absorbing] out when cold.

Question: Is metalic reflective better than flat white for reflecting light and it's thermal consequences?
.



posted on Dec, 8 2004 @ 03:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Killak420

Originally posted by mattison0922
Killa,

I live in Arizona, and I agree with you 100%. Furthermore, the land wouldn't necessarily have to be given up. If you've ever been to Phoenix you'd realize that everywhere are these lousy corrugated structures built to shield cars from the sun, especially Apt complexes, which there is no shortage of here. Instead of topping these with corrugated aluminum, require them to be topped with solar panels. There are alot of roofs out here too. Tax incentives can drive people to make these changes as the 'Alternative Fuels' fiasco here a couple years ago clearly demonstrated. Every apt. complex in this cultural wasteland would be able to generate their own electricity, and have enough to sell back to SRP (local power). I know two people with two solar panels each on their home, no batteries, but even without, they sell enough power back to SRP where their power bill is less than $100 a year. In June, my electric is usually about $250.



Those two people you know are really smart. Do you know how much it cost them to have those solar panels put on there homes? I live in Maryland and my electric bill is an average of $100 to $150 a month.

One of them who did it several years ago got in for under $3K, the other guy (who also has solar hot water) got in recently for about $4.5K. It is noteworthy that NEITHER has batteries, which I understand is the truely cost prohibitive aspect, so they are still on the grid. They'd actually do better if the laws were different here. I believe in CA, the power company has to buy energy back at pretty close to the rate they sell it. Here SRP buys it back for something like 20% of what they sell it for. So if SRP was a little more fair, my friends would actually be getting paid by SRP.

[edit on 8-12-2004 by mattison0922]



posted on Dec, 8 2004 @ 03:45 PM
link   


If there were some way to contain/store the heat energy of summer for the winter we could at least reduce our energy consumption for heating homes.
(spacey, i know, but there might be something)

Would be nice... I've got about 30 you can have every single day from about late may till late september. Isn't the problem though that heat is energy at it's highest or nearly highest entropic form? Is it even possible to store heat energy in an open system? One can store heat in a thermos, a closed system, but how could one store heat from an open system... I suppose you mention one below. The idea of a 'passive solar home,' although this still seems to be a closed system. A guy down the street from my dad's house has a passive solar home, but no color changing paint. Almost all windows are on the south side, and there are stone floors to collect the heat from the sun. The heat is then radiated out at night. It's an interesting concept...heat storage in open systems, that is.


I have thought about a housepaint that changes from black to white at about 65 or 70 degrees. (passive solar)

Interesting thought.... what about insulation though? It seems like were energy to be stored on the outside of insulated structures, it would tend to simply radiate out rather than inward.


Also verticle blinds that are black on one side and white on the other.
Face white [reflective] out when it is [too] warm and black [light absorbing] out when cold.

Something like this certainly sounds more feasible.... However, do you think that heat reflected by the blinds would be able to make it back out? I guess the way I envision this in my head is black blinds get hot via absorption, and white ones distribute the heat via reflection. Do you think it would make any differences on the overall temp?

BTW, not trying to start an argument with you... just asking questions.


Question: Is metalic reflective better than flat white for reflecting light and it's thermal consequences?

My impression is that white is a better reflective material, but this isn't really based on anything except my imagination.



posted on Dec, 8 2004 @ 08:29 PM
link   
Read these two topics on the board

www.atsnn.com...

and

www.atsnn.com...

This will shed a little light on the subject.



posted on Dec, 8 2004 @ 08:54 PM
link   
Here is another source of energy called Tidal Energy.
Seems like it would be expensive to build but could produce energy for a small city.



posted on Dec, 8 2004 @ 11:59 PM
link   
If every roof had solar panela on it not only would is raise global warming but I wouldn't like to be a pilot, the ground would be very bright.

Solar cells in space could beam the power down to the earth, giving us our power, and the wont degrade as fast as they would here because of the elements.




posted on Dec, 9 2004 @ 12:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Murcielago
If every roof had solar panela on it not only would is raise global warming but I wouldn't like to be a pilot, the ground would be very bright.

Solar cells in space could beam the power down to the earth, giving us our power, and the wont degrade as fast as they would here because of the elements.



If we could find a way to collect sollar energy using black non-reflective cells, that take the solar and heat input, instead of using the reflective cells that we have now a days, it wouldn't be much of a problem.

An earthquake or tornado could easily damage the base of that tower making it collapse back into earth.

What was that guy's name that knew how to obtain free energy from anywhere? And being able to recieve it as some sort of radio waves?



posted on Dec, 9 2004 @ 12:34 AM
link   

VC
An earthquake or tornado could easily damage the base of that tower making it collapse back into earth.

no no no, that is not a huge tower that goes from earth to space, that picture kinda makes it hard to judge distance. The space plane in the pic would release it in orbit around earth and by means of a laser it would send the power down to earth to be consumed.



posted on Dec, 9 2004 @ 06:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Murcielago

VC
An earthquake or tornado could easily damage the base of that tower making it collapse back into earth.

no no no, that is not a huge tower that goes from earth to space, that picture kinda makes it hard to judge distance. The space plane in the pic would release it in orbit around earth and by means of a laser it would send the power down to earth to be consumed.


That is a great idea but dont you think if we have a system like that our governments would use it to do evil.After all its a energy beam being sent to earth from space, it sounds more like a space weapon.



posted on Dec, 9 2004 @ 11:32 AM
link   
Solar farm thing is interesting - they say even with current tech a plot 150x150 miles would provide enough power for whole US, but that still leaves the night time and storage issues.

I do think a more distributed approach is beneficial - we will still need fossil/nuke to provide power during darkness unless suitable large scale storage was worked out (there are huge tech and efficiency issues here).

I'm all for a 1-2% tax additional tax on fossil fuel use which would go directly to government subsidized solar installs - be it small or large scale. Heck a simple law requiring any fed/state/local building to generate electricity equal to use would be a great start as would the same requirement in new housing construction, especially here in the southwest. Net metering in CA works great even on a small scale. Fossil is only cheap considering the infrastructure cost has gone in and been amortized over the years - a new dirt burner (or gas or oil) plant still costs millions to bring online and has the Nimby factor - solar is low impact and efficiencies are getting better all the time - lots of sunny roofs here in LA....



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join