Large-scale solar takes up far too much space for the wattage it delivers. The San Onofre plant delivers over 2,000 MW of power in a small footprint with no emissions.
I am all for residential solar, but even then, it is only efficient in areas where you get enough sun exposure. Wind farms are the same way, they have the added problem of being ugly, and some environmentalists complain that birds get killed by the propeller blades (I call that Darwinism, but hey, that's me). I do support commercial solar in urban environments such as on the tops of buildings. Take a look at what SoCal Edison is doing, it's pretty good: http://earthfirst.com/big-solar-and-little-solar-engaged-in-turf-wars/ But even then, they are talking 250 megawatts- that's a tiny fraction of Southern California's energy needs. Ironically, it's the green power companies doing home solar that are worried about SoCal Edison's move. California's daily peak electricity usage is over 30,000 MW. We currently have just over 4,000 MW nuclear capacity.With 15 new nuclear plants, we could meet all of the current electricity needs in the state with an emissions-free technology. On Tue, Dec 23, 2008 at 4:38 AM, Dana <dana.tier...@gmail.com> wrote: > Who says solar sucks at scale? Has it ever been deployed at a large scale? > AFAIK the issue with solar and wind is that economies of scale have not yet > kicked in. That, and the utility companies don't like it when meters run > backwards. > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Adobe® ColdFusion® 8 software 8 is the most important and dramatic release to date Get the Free Trial http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;207172674;29440083;f Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:283339 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
