View Single Post
Old 04-06-2019, 09:53 AM   #5530 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
sendler's Avatar
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Syracuse, NY USA
Posts: 2,935

Honda CBR250R FI Single - '11 Honda CBR250R
90 day: 105.14 mpg (US)

2001 Honda Insight stick - '01 Honda Insight manual
90 day: 60.68 mpg (US)

2009 Honda Fit auto - '09 Honda Fit Auto
90 day: 38.51 mpg (US)

PCX153 - '13 Honda PCX150
90 day: 104.48 mpg (US)

2015 Yamaha R3 - '15 Yamaha R3
90 day: 80.94 mpg (US)

Ninja650 - '19 Kawasaki Ninja 650
90 day: 72.57 mpg (US)
Thanks: 326
Thanked 1,314 Times in 967 Posts
Originally Posted by Hersbird View Post
Solar on the other hand would only require .5% of the land of the US to produce 1 TW.

250 nuclear plants the size of Palo Verde would also make 1 TW.

So what makes the most sense to me? All of the above!
Grid scale solar farms require about 5 W/ sq meter in good locations to include all associated electronics, panel spacing, roads, substations, ect, 1 TW of solar requires 200,000 sq km. 2.6% of the total land area of the continental USA. Probably not quite enough good area due to mountains ect. in the entire state of Arizona.
Less than perfect locations in the snowy/ rainy North will average about half of that on an annual basis and near zero for many days at a time in the Winter. But if we could make the panels and racking last for 100 years at a time, and make the expendable electronic components in the inverter easy to swap out. And convert all heat, agriculture, mining, industry, transportation, to electric, it will be much better than nothing. And much easier to maintain by hand than 100 meter tall wind turbines which start to wear out every 15 years.
The lowest carbon electric regions all have mostly hydro or nuclear.
The Following User Says Thank You to sendler For This Useful Post:
aerohead (04-06-2019)