"Gene Kearns" wrote in message
...

On Sat, 1 Mar 2008 17:43:56 -0500, Eisboch penned the following well
considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats:


Nuclear power is the answer. Clean, safe and has been the center of our
solar system and of the universe for that matter, for billions of years.



That sounds more like an endorsement for solar power. Leave the
reactor on the sun where it belongs!



Wind and solar power are nice to dream about but unless you want to
radically change the way we live, (meaning going back to the early 1900's)
they simply are not practical yet, nor will they be for quite a while when
you compare them to nuclear generated power.

The largest wind generator (as of 2005) is an off-shore monster that
generates 5 mega watts of power.

http://www.reuk.co.uk/Worlds-Largest...-Generator.htm

The US currently has 104 operating nuclear plants that combined produce
almost 100,000 mega watts.
It would take about 20,000 of the wind monsters to equal that. Where are
they going to be situated?

Solar, although getting better, is still less efficient than wind.

Eisboch

"Eisboch" wrote in message
...


Solar, although getting better, is still less efficient than wind.

Eisboch

Solar is oversold. 2 huge problems. Does not work well if you have a
cloudy week and at nights. Then you have to store the power to use it.

And that is before one gets to needing many acres of land to get a
meaningful quality. And by the way, using lots of plastics made from oil to
make the cells...funny.

Works good on poles and signs though. Just isn't going to scale up or power
a whole city.

"Canuck57" wrote in message
news:J7Byj.36101$w94.20623@pd7urf2no...

"Eisboch" wrote in message
...


Solar, although getting better, is still less efficient than wind.

Eisboch

Solar is oversold. 2 huge problems. Does not work well if you have a
cloudy week and at nights. Then you have to store the power to use it.

And that is before one gets to needing many acres of land to get a
meaningful quality. And by the way, using lots of plastics made from oil
to make the cells...funny.


Plastic? Don't think so. State of the art cells are doped silicon (plenty
of that around) which are then further processed with protective and
conductive coatings. Recent advances in the optical assemblies that focus
more of the available sunlight onto the cells is one of the significant
reasons for improved efficiency. About 25 years ago solar cell efficiency
was, at best, 15 percent.
Today it's up to a mind boggling 18-20 percent. Long ways to go.

Solar and wind are still a long, long ways from being a viable energy
alternative to replace fossil fuel. The 100,000 megawatt capacity of the
nuclear plants currently operating in the US only supplies about 20 percent
of consummed power.
Solar and/or wind can't even be considered to make up the difference, let
alone replace oil and nuc altogether.

Eisboch

On Sun, 02 Mar 2008 13:07:50 -0500, Eisboch wrote:



Solar and wind are still a long, long ways from being a viable energy
alternative to replace fossil fuel. The 100,000 megawatt capacity of
the nuclear plants currently operating in the US only supplies about 20
percent of consummed power.
Solar and/or wind can't even be considered to make up the difference,
let alone replace oil and nuc altogether.

I'm not sure about that. In this country, wind energy alone, accounts
for 13,000 megawatts, most installed in the last 5 years, and there are
estimates that wind alone, could provide twice our present energy needs.

Portugal expects 45% of their energy needs to be met by renewable energy
by 2015. Germany isn't far behind.

I don't think anyone expects *one* silver bullet. It's going to take
conservation, new technologies, and, perhaps, most importantly, a
comprehensive national energy policy, which this present administration
doesn't seem to have the stomach for. I'm not saying it will be easy,
but it can be done, and solar/wind should be part of the mix.