|
|
re: solar in poorer countries (was re: nuclear power: non-renewable does not mean non-sustainable.)
14 apr 1997
paul f. dietz wrote:
>"rod speed" wrote:
>>> solar and wind have not achieved very large market penetration.
"solar" what? why interest ourselves in electrical power, when 1) most of the
energy used in a house is for heat, 2) the cost of fossil fuel heating energy
is going up, not down, 3) the electrical fraction is shrinking as people use
more compact fluorescents, etc., 4) the electrical cost per kwh is likely to
go down, with deregulation, and 5) middle east wars are about oil?
>>...solar which has been extensively researched and commercialised...
"solar" what? electricity? there are other ways to use the sun.
>"quite a bit" means an annual production of modules in the tens of
>megawatts. this is trivial compared to the production that would
>occur if solar were called upon to supply a substantial fraction of
>world energy demand.
"solar" does provide a substantial fraction of world energy demand.
for instance, "solar" brings us daylight, dries clothes, grows food,
melts snow, and makes it rain...
>>> let's suppose a substantial fraction of world energy
>>> demand were to be supplied by wind or solar.
it is :-)
>>...if you've got natural gas for heating, the economics
>>of thermal energy storage in say houses is pretty bad too.
>this depends on the cost of natural gas. at a residence, it might
>run $7/gj. this corresponds to electricity at $.025/kwh.
a 55 gallon drum full of 130 f water cooling to 80 f stores about 6 kwh.
where do we find these 15 cent drums, counting labor and floorspace?
nick
|
|
