Thread: nuclear plants
View Single Post
Old 09-27-2008, 04:50 PM   #43 (permalink)
NeilBlanchard
Master EcoModder
 
NeilBlanchard's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Maynard, MA Eaarth
Posts: 7,907

Mica Blue - '05 Scion xA RS 2.0
Team Toyota
90 day: 42.48 mpg (US)

Forest - '15 Nissan Leaf S
Team Nissan
90 day: 156.46 mpg (US)

Number 7 - '15 VW e-Golf SEL
TEAM VW AUDI Group
90 day: 155.81 mpg (US)
Thanks: 3,475
Thanked 2,950 Times in 1,844 Posts
Hi,

You should check out Guy Dauncey's books and DVD -- he is located in Victoria. Germany is approaching 12% power from PV and they will probably get to well over 20% quite soon -- they have as much solar as in Washington state; which is just about the worst anywhere in this country.

Denmark is doing very well in wind power.

What is wrong with diversifying? If we can get 33% of our power from wind in South Dakota alone (or 66% if we double our efficiency), and if we can get 100% from solar in 10% of Nevada (200% if we double out efficiency)

and 18% from tidal, and an equal amount from wave power -- add in geothermal, biomass, and if we can cut our losses to transmission... It quickly becomes obvious that renewable energies can easily meet our needs, and then some.

Guy Dauncey estimates that we could collect up to 100X or 300X as power as we need:
Quote:
Does it add up?

2004 global energy use: 120 TWh/year
Global sustainable energy need : 120 TWh/yr

A: Tidal 21 TWh + Biomass 75 TWh + Geothermal 137 TWh * + City Solar 31 TWh = 264 TWh = 2 x need

B: Wind: 628 TWh(Archer, 2005) = 5 x need

C: Solar deserts (120 TWh per 340,000 sq m) = 100 x need

D: Deep Hot Rocks Geothermal: 10 to 200 x need

Total = 100 to 300 x more power than needed
__________________
Sincerely, Neil

http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/
  Reply With Quote