Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: RegulatorCountry
I see great possibilities, even to the point of not resenting subsidization to the extent that many FReepers do.

There is just so much solar energy impinging on the entire area of the map of a nation, and so far less than 50% of that amount can be converted to channelable electricity, Whatever is under the impinging rays must remain in darkness. Totally, there is not enough energy reliable and available by solar means to fuel the needs of a population.

In an agrarian society, sunshine could supply photons for food, but not in our industrialize society where we expect so much more, and for so greatly a concentration of humanity.

Stored sunshine in the form of coal, oil, and gas are now needed, with nuclear energy promising an illimitable supply. I don't think we should consider solarity as an alternative except for some special preferred purposes. It certainly will not provide heat for the Inuit population in Alaska, Siberia, or Greenland. And I don't think I want to relocate to regions like that. I don't like eating seal fat as a staple all that much.

44 posted on 01/10/2017 9:40:00 AM PST by imardmd1 (Fiat Lux)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies ]


To: imardmd1

Quoting the exceptions doesn’t undermine the utility where it’s applicable. Otherwise, hydroelectric power would have never been adopted because it doesn’t work in the desert.


47 posted on 01/10/2017 9:43:42 AM PST by RegulatorCountry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson