Tremendous amounts of solar generation can be placed on homes and businesses and adjacent lands. Finding one acre of land for every 200 homes is not a big deal...
I'm not sure there's any significance to that. That's not possible. you have to transmit power through a conductor. Right now superconductors don't operate in atmospheric conditions they have to be chilled to very Sub-Zero conditions. So over the span of many miles through an aluminum wire you're going to build up resistance. Resistance is energy loss through heat. You look at those high tension wires that are the way electricity is transmitted there is never any birds sitting on them do you know why? They're about four or five hundred degrees Fahrenheit. If you triple that mileage it will be enough to melt those wires. solar power plants that power one home that are owned and operated by the homeowner is probably the only way will ever see a dominance and solar power. Larger solar plants don't produce enough power. I think there's a lot of obstacles that you don't really even understand. Like the many miles away thing it's not possible. Conductors limit range.
Theres plenty of land, if we unlock what governments have locked away from use by The People all over the world.
But that's not anywhere near where we need the power to be generated. You can't build a power plant in Nevada and transmit power to Kentucky. Electricity must flow through a conductor. No conductor is perfect. So over a stretch of 80 miles does high tension wires will be up to about 500 degrees. When a conductor heats up energy is lost. Resistance builds up. So you'll reach a point at which the wire would just melt.
True. However we have plenty of needs for electricity beyond residences, many of which could suitably be moved to 'Nevada'.
Okay so the problem with that is if you have people working out there did Thor have to fly out there or they have to live near by.
Well this wasn't really to promote nuclear power it was to illustrate how much farther solar power has to go before it can even think about being competitive. Nuclear power is not without its drawbacks. One enormous one is spent fuel.
But then you'll have residences and those need electricity. So essentially you would be founding a new town. And for a town to exist you have to have grocery stores movie theaters places to buy clothing so on and so forth. So you've put something out and Nevada and you've created a greater need for electricity. That's just found another city we've been doing that for thousands of years. I don't understand the point you're making.
It all depends whether the technology in question can support the needs of a community big enough to keep it running and yet output sufficient extra energy to warrant its existence in the first place. Which it eventually will if developed properly. One good purpose for it would be to generate hydrogen (Nevada probably isn't suitable, but other places would be, like desert coastlines in Africa). Cars that run on hydrogen have been commercially available for over a decade. Solar electricity plus water (even ocean water as I understand) is all thats needed to get hydrogen (I'm sure a commercial use could be found for the oxygen as well), and stored hydrogen can be transported any distance. The only question remains- can the technology be made efficient enough to be cost effective. It sounds to me like OP is at the very least one more step in that direction.
you'll have to explain what this technology is you talking about. it sounds like a city. I think replacing gasoline with hydrogen it's probably not a good idea. Hydrogen has a highly flammable gas. the people would just be basically driving around nitrogen filled bonds we can't stop them from smashing into each other as it stands now.
The technology is potentially that depicted in OP (or a more developed/efficient version of it). People are already driving hydrogen powered 'bombs.' That can of worms was openned a long time ago (and to my knowledge it hasn't led to a higher death rate than gasoline powered cars). https://www.androidpit.com/best-hydrogen-powered-cars I did a bit of looking- the risk of explosion in a hydrogen powered car accident is very small. Explosions require a mix of fuel and oxygen. The hydrogen tank is filled to 10000psi of H and no O. A puntured tank + ignition in open air will produce an impressive gout of flame. An explosion could only occur in a n enclosed space where the H can mix with O but not escape (like in an unventilated tunnel or underground parking structure). However, gasoline and natural gas will do this as well. In fact, due to H's low mass, it rises a lot faster (like 4x faster) than natural gas, making it less likely to be a fire hazard on the open road than natural gas vehicles are.
I am no expert but I believe power can be distributed over long distances such as from state to state. The heat you speak of occurs because of amps. There is very little amps when these transmission lines are at 13,600 volts or higher. I was with an engineer doing a start up on a diesel generator that was rated 2MW at 13,600V and was capable of 98 amps.
is that bad? I did a bit of looking- the risk of explosion in a hydrogen powered car accident is very small. Explosions require a mix of fuel and oxygen. The hydrogen tank is filled to 10000psi of H and no O. A puntured tank + ignition in open air will produce an impressive gout of flame (but not an explosion). An explosion could only occur in an enclosed space where the H can mix with O but not escape (like in an unventilated tunnel or underground parking structure). However, gasoline and natural gas will do this as well. In fact, due to H's low mass, it rises a lot faster (like 4x faster) than the lightest natural gas, making it less likely to be a fire hazard on the open road than natural gas and gasoline vehicles are. And its probably less likely to spontaneously catch fire for no reason like Teslas
Birds do sit on electricity pylon wires http://www.sciencemadesimple.co.uk/files/2017/08/birds-1036015_960_720-300x225.jpg
Close enough to the power plant sure. I've got some of that run close by my house and birds never sit on their if they did they burn their feet. They nest in the towers.
The power loss is distributed evenly throughout the cable length hence the temperature is the same along its length. If the cables got as hot as you imagine, there would be steam coming off cables everytime it rained. The risk to birds is only if they touch both wires or if they touch a single wire and are touching a structure that is uninsulated from the ground
I don't care about birds. I'm pointing out they don't perch on them. And they don't because they're too hot
But you're wrong. The reason that don't perch on the higher tension cables is because of the electrical field causing a tingling sensation, the cables are just not comfortable. Nothing to do with the cables being too hot - the cables do warm up which quite often the birds use for their advantage.
Because you say so? Pfft I know people who work in that industry, who are you? Do you mean electro magnetic field? Yeah that would be around the wire also
