Thread: Obama is closing record number of power plants.

Originally Posted by Omicron

Imagine one were to put up massive arrays of solar panels, high up and large enough to build communities in their shade.

The surface temperature would drop, so you could have more greenery with irrigation on furtile soil (desert soil is the richest, because everything to die there stays there without being washed out), it would be cheeper to air-condition dwellings because they'd be in the shade, while in the mean time all the "shades" are not just blocking hot sunlight... they are absorbing it and turning it into power.

America is a fossil-fuel hog, when ironically it's got geography in the south-west better than most places for harvesting solar power.

Spain invested in solar power to take advantage of their hot, sunny, arid regions, and the payback's getting competative with Denmark's wind-turbine systems.

The US has high-deserts in the south-west, the sunlight is beaming down constantly, almost begging to be harvested, and solar-panel shade would make the land underneith more pleasently inhabitable if one just puts in the panels high-up enough to build under.

I think that's a great idea. Because it's permanent and low maintenance. Sunlight isn't going to be "used up" until after the entire planet is gone, and solar panels have zero moving parts. A project like this is actually worth using tax money for, since the entire community would reap the benefits. And instead of tearing the land up, like drilling for oil or mining coal, the land would become more livable. I would move there if they did that. The sooner they build it, the sooner they can start realizing the returns, which will continue indefinitely.

Also, to the OP, the article says "coal plant operators (not Obama) are planning to retire 175 coal-fired generators." I don't like Obama either, but you don't have to lie to make a point.

Well...Like they always say, no one has a crystal ball.

I don't know much but I know plants.

And so far animals are not that difficult if you keep them fed and give them a little shelter and lots of room.

The hard part is killing them. But they taste real good.

I used to have a bumper sticker that read "We don't have solar power because corporations can't own the sun".

Originally Posted by Junkieturtle

I used to have a bumper sticker that read "We don't have solar power because corporations can't own the sun".

Reminds me of Tesla's Wardenclyffe tower. Technically, it worked perfectly. But Westinghouse was like, "How am I supposed to charge people for it?", so it was scrapped. Another case of corporate greed undermining the public good. We COULD be using a virtually lossless transmission system, for the betterment of all humanity, but how would that buy a rich man another yacht?

Originally Posted by fifthofnovember

I think that's a great idea. Because it's permanent and low maintenance. Sunlight isn't going to be "used up" until after the entire planet is gone, and solar panels have zero moving parts. A project like this is actually worth using tax money for, since the entire community would reap the benefits. And instead of tearing the land up, like drilling for oil or mining coal, the land would become more livable. I would move there if they did that. The sooner they build it, the sooner they can start realizing the returns, which will continue indefinitely.

Yeah... it makes as much power as wind turbines, but no moving parts, therefore cheaper maintenance...

And it doesn't have to be built over bare land in hopes that people will move in... there's lots of little towns in the southwest already baking under the sun.

I'm thinking in particular of a little place in eastern California, just off the edge of Death Valley, called Trona.

It's an amazing town. They mine a salt-pan for potasium etc., and must drill down thousands of feet to pipe up and distill brine for water, so nobody wastes it. They don't water lawns. Instead, the creative types landscape their yard with Japanese-style raking-patterns, decorated with cacti and salt-bush. Their community swimming pool is filled with undistilled brine, so they get the experience of swimming in the Dead Sea. Given the cost of water, it's not realistic to irrigate trees.

The scorching-hot sun is constant, such that outdoor social-life starts at dusk, and they spend a fortune on air-conditioning.

Yet I know that as a community they have money. They live under those conditions because it pays well.

If they were to allocate the funds most towns spend on parks, it might be enough to shade themselves with solar panels, such that not only would the shade cool things down and therefore reduce the cost of air-conditioning, the energy they collect might be enough to power the remaining air-conditioning requirements, such that it might knock the cost of air-conditioning out of their budgets altogether, making it a very worthwhile investment of community funds, plus they can start hanging outside during daytime hours...

Hmm...

Also, to the OP, the article says "coal plant operators (not Obama) are planning to retire 175 coal-fired generators." I don't like Obama either, but you don't have to lie to make a point.

Good point. Doesn't suprise me now that you say, but I too thought it was an Obama push.

Originally Posted by fifthofnovember

Reminds me of Tesla's Wardenclyffe tower. Technically, it worked perfectly. But Westinghouse was like, "How am I supposed to charge people for it?", so it was scrapped. Another case of corporate greed undermining the public good. We COULD be using a virtually lossless transmission system, for the betterment of all humanity, but how would that buy a rich man another yacht?

Probably kill a lot of birds tho. And I wouldn't much like to be anywhere near a transmission "line" during a thunder storm.

Originally Posted by Jonsa

Probably kill a lot of birds tho. And I wouldn't much like to be anywhere near a transmission "line" during a thunder storm.

Actually, the electricity would be transmitted through the earth, not the air. Wardenclyffe tower went about as deeply into the earth as its above ground height.

They are still working on Telsa's tower.

I am not sure it worked as well as intended.

I just saw a show on some science program about it.

Originally Posted by fifthofnovember

Actually, the electricity would be transmitted through the earth, not the air. Wardenclyffe tower went about as deeply into the earth as its above ground height.

How could that work?

Wouldn't there need to be as much current going through the air as through the ground in order to complete a circuit?

Looks like I need to do some reading. I'd never heard of Wardenclyffe towers.

Originally Posted by Omicron

Hmm... more coal than the Middle East has oil...

We have the technology to convert coal to gasoline, but they say it's too expensive... that it's cheeper to buy petroleum from the Middle East.

At the same time, the US spends bazillions on military to ensure that oil supplies from the Middle East will be secured.

Doesn't that mean it would be just as cheep to take the money that would be spent on military, and spend it on coal-to-oil conversion?

Hmm... maybe it's because long-range planners in Washington want to burn up foriegn supplies first before resorting to their own reserves. Theoretically that's better than burning up local reserves first and then having to go hat-in-hand to Arabs.

In any case, that still doesn't address the fact that there's enough hot sunlight pounding down on the high-deserts of the American southwest to satisfy all the electrical demands the nation could ask for if someone would just put up the solar panels... and if they install them high enough, people can build nice comfortable non-humid communities in the shade.

Domestic Coal does not require Military intervention to secure. That's why domestic coal will never be a viable option.