On Sun, 29 May 2005 14:02:08 EDT, you wrote: >In a message dated 5/24/2005 10:20:52 AM Eastern Daylight Time, >[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: >I find that hard to believe. >Do you have some factual data to back up your opinion? >Airships already use solar panels to power them.
--- The only one I've been able to find is a "stratellite" http://www.sanswire.com/stratellites.htm Which hasn't yet been deployed, and is designed to send RF signals into its target area, as opposed to converting sunlight into substantial quantities of electrical energy for distribution on the grid. --- >But I have not data to back >up my suggestions other than it seems logical and safer to build smaller and >more mobile solar towers when possible. --- I disagree, in that it seems to me that by going smaller the economy of scale will be lost. Consider a photovoltaic array 1/4 of a mile on an edge supported by columns one mile high, with a column on each corner. Now consider an array one mile on an edge with supporting columns on a 1/4 mile by 1/4 grid under the array. For this configuration a total of 25 columns would be needed, while for 16 separate 1/4 mile X 1/4 mile arrays, 64 columns would be needed! Admittedly, the columns for the small arrays could have a smaller diameter, but even for a two-fold increase in diameter, (if a quadrupling of area was needed for the four-fold increase in compressive load, only 25 columns would have to be poured. The same goes for the cabling and DC to AC conversion equipment, where a few large diameter cables and a doubly or triply redundant converter could save an enormous amount of money and headaches with the synchronization of the outputs from many converters. Then there's the huge moving shadow which would be cast under the 16 square mile array which, if the array were to be located above a desert, might help to precipitate moisture out of the air and make the land arable. -- John Fields Professional Circuit Designer
