Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: anymouse

Of course, it still suffers from the same problem that all solar sources do, namely, the low power density of sunlight. At 1 kW per square meter, it would take 1 square kilometer of a 100% conversion efficiency process, at the equator (when the sun is directly overhead) to generate 1 GW - at noon. Away from the equator, away from noon, and if your process isn't 100% efficient, it would take more land area than that to make 1 GW. That's a lot of land for only a modestly powerful power plant.


10 posted on 01/31/2005 12:23:23 PM PST by coloradan (Hence, etc.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: coloradan

I'd bet that your average 1000 MW coal or nuclear station has a bigger footprint than 1 square km. But those darned "sun angle", "nighttime", and "cloudy day" issues...those are tough indeed to overcome.


16 posted on 01/31/2005 12:39:26 PM PST by Lekker 1 (A government policy to rob Peter to pay Paul can be assured of the support of Paul [G.B. Shaw])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies ]

To: coloradan

Actually, keeping it at the equator still wouldn't maintain maximum capture. You'd have to continuously migrate it between the two tropics. /nitpick


17 posted on 01/31/2005 12:51:26 PM PST by Squawk 8888 (With enemies like Michael Moore, who needs friends?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


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