MyFox
 

gimini210's Blog

by gimini210 from Independence

Last Post 13 days, 12 hours Ago


Solar Energy Plants
Nov 18, 2008 | 8:50 PM
Category: News
Report This Post

I understand the need to come up with plans for clean energy but at what cost? The solar energy plant in CA is huge, it takes a million+ gallons of water a year to operate.  Uses 2000 achers of land, and produces 1% of the energy for  FPL. Now that is alot of land and water for 150 megawatts of energy. Concervation is the idea behind clean energy and I am led to ask what are we conseving? Not land, nor water and for as little eletric as they put out not energy. So I have come to the conclution it is air and some ones pocket book as we would have to strip all forrest, and brush around them so they would get maximum sunlight to produce. http://www.fplenergy.com/portfolio/solar/facts.shtmla>

 

 

2000 achers for 1% of an energy plants eletric. It would take 200,000 achers to supply the full power level of 100% and 100million+ gallons of water to run. Now to power the whole of our country by wind, solar and hydro it would take how much land and water? I am seeing problems already with this plan. Hydro makes sense as it harnesses water flowing in its natural habitat but solar seems to need alot of land and water that is unusable for anything else. We have been using hydro power plants for years but the solar and wind make me wonder.

Years ago we use to be able to by wind power machines for our yards until the government and power plants found out it cut into their taxes and profits and outlawed them. If left legal at some point we would have had enough in yards to cut most of our dependence on alternate energy. So we have the government to thank for that. Just as the solar plants are not something that makes logical sense because of what it takes to make them big enough to operate where they can supply enough energy to power a town and we would have to depend on sunny days or they revert to gas to run.

Now, solar panels on homes makes more sense. They require less space, operate on roofs or sheds or can be placed on the ground but the cost is out of reach for most people. That would be the way to go. But then again it would cut into taxes and profits so I understand why they still cost so much to buy. If the government was truely wanting to clean the air they would allow the windmills again as they are cheaper to buy and alot of places have plenty of wind. They are not the most attactive units but they do produce energy and are an answer to energy problems.

So now we have to ask ourselfs a few questions. If the government is so bent on clean energy why ban so many products to the public that would save energy? why are carberators that get 70+ MPG not being used? Why do personal solar panels cost so much? Why not invest money in placing solar panels on homes instead of taking up millions of achers and water to run solar power plants? Why not allow windmills if people can afford them? Could it be a loss of money in some ones pockets and not ours? I have alot of questions and I would love to hear the government answer them.

Now turbo windmills cost a big chunk of money. But they have places you can look up that sale books on building one of your own for about $200.00 and the investment of around $40.00 for the book on how to do it yourself. So for about $240.00 you can build a unit for yourself. That makes sense to me.

Nite all and God bless.

 

 

17 Comments |  Add a Comment

Member Comments Total Comments: 17
Page 1 of 1
vision read my blog
Nov 18, 2008 | 11:21 PM

Now this is a "cool" topic.
vision read my blog
Nov 18, 2008 | 11:26 PM

As for clearing all brush, California has a pretty start on that with all the fires. I still like the windmills, they just need to learn how to negotiate cost. The government should help any American that would like to convert their home into a "research lab". Call the "energy users bailout", but you know the utility companies are going to start barking when you take their profits away.
gimini210 read my blog view my photos
Nov 19, 2008 | 4:27 AM

That is why the windmills were stopped years ago. People were putting them in their backyards and charging back the utility companies. They did not like it.
JewwellsP read my blog view my photos
Nov 19, 2008 | 10:03 AM

Well the acres of land, is nothing but desert. Flat as can be.
The water you speak of is in a "closed" system it is used over & over again. Hydronic is what it is called.

gimini just remember a computer in 1950 would fill a 12' x 12' floor space.
If the USA invested 10% of NASA budget for 5 years, Lord only knows what could be developed.
Do we really give a rats a$$ what the make up of Mars rock is?
Lets worry about the Earth for a while I say.
Kinda like lets worry about America for a while, let the rest of the world fend for themselves for a while.
jpbikerfreak read my blog view my photos
Nov 19, 2008 | 11:37 AM

Nice Theory gimini, but unfortunately not based in reality.

Electric companies that offer incentives to use less of their power, including buyback programs
gimini210 read my blog view my photos
Nov 19, 2008 | 11:45 AM

The problem is if you build the solar plants to produce enoug enery to power a plant you need 312.5 sq. miles of land. as it is the 2000 acers they are using now takes up 3.13 sq. miles for 1%. Now to power 50 plants you need 15,625 sq. miles of land. All that land has to be cleared and raped to give just 50 states one power plant each operated by solar energy. 404,685,642.24 sq acers would be needed to supply 50 states. Now add up that water. And remember that is 1 million gallons per year not for ever. It has to be replaced per year. It comes to 5,000,000,000 gallons of water for 50 plants. Now that is a problem.
gimini210 read my blog view my photos
Nov 19, 2008 | 11:49 AM

And remember the cost to operate these plants will raise your electric about 3 to 4 times what it is now. If your bill is $100.00 a month it will be $300 to $400.00 a month. The more you pay the higher the bill. Now how much do you earn? Can you afford that much of an increase? Then because of the shortage of water that will also go up. How much do you earn? Hope you are one of the 5% of rich people out there because you will need to be.
gimini210 read my blog view my photos
Nov 19, 2008 | 11:53 AM

I am talking about actual solar powered plants. The size of them and the amount of energy they produce and the amount of land it would take to create one big enough to actually power an entire plant. And I know about the incentives the government offers and the plants. I also know how much it cost for solar panels and turbo windmills. If you do not build it yourself you have to be earning alot of money to buy them. They cost as much as a new car. Some more than a new car.
jpbikerfreak read my blog view my photos
Nov 19, 2008 | 1:47 PM

I agree with all that. You'd need 4 miles of panels to run a toaster.

I just disputed your assertion that power companies didn't like it when people started using solar and selling it back.
JewwellsP read my blog view my photos
Nov 19, 2008 | 2:07 PM

Again, a computer in 1950 was how big? Cost how much?
Cell phone used to be how big? Cost how much?
It shall all get better with time. Kinda like the car industry @ $4.00/gal lots of talk of 40-50MPG vehicle development.
Now were hovering at $1.859 average, the talk has all but stopped.

I will not dispute the expense & size portion.
Yet the fact remains, we need to come up with something other than fossil fuel. All of this technology has to start somewhere.
gimini210 read my blog view my photos
Nov 19, 2008 | 2:19 PM

Not solar but windmills. And no they did not as windmills generate more electric than solar does. They operate on less wind than solar relies on sun. They do not need sun all they need is a breeze to operate and were costing the electric companies. I was alive and there when they were first becoming popular then suddenly banned. I know for a fact that they were blocked from being used.
gimini210 read my blog view my photos
Nov 19, 2008 | 2:24 PM

Yes and when we used the old computers there were very few places they could be used. Right now and in the near future solar is not a viable source until it can be reduced to a much more compact unit and funtion at a reasonable rate. Niether is here right now and therefore they are not sensable to use. They take too much land and water to generate a small amount of energy. Personal solar panels makes better sense yet the government is not talking about instlling them on homes but starting billions of dollars in solar power plants that will eat up land and water. That is insane. Better to put them on homes with the money they would use to build one or two plants.
Calco read my blog view my photos
Nov 19, 2008 | 8:27 PM

The United states should build 100 new Nuclear Power Plants and our energy problems would be solved. Nuclear is less dangerous than Burning Coal, and it is also Green, we have the technology today to reuse Nuclear waste and get power from it, so no need to fill caves with waste, anyone that thinks that their was any danger at 3 mile island years ago, has been mis-informed by the media, the meltdown of a reactor in russia actually created more radiation for someone at 3 mile island than the one at that facility, because it was built properly, unlike the one in russia,
the Coal and Oil tycoons are the ones that have lied to the American Public about Nuclear energy.
JewwellsP read my blog view my photos
Nov 19, 2008 | 10:12 PM

we have the technology today to reuse Nuclear waste Calco
Nov 19, 2008 | 7:27 PM
didn't know that, will have to check it out.
If it is true though, wonder why they still want to dump a whole bunch in Utah?
vision read my blog
Nov 20, 2008 | 2:33 AM

They are utilizing Nuclear power in Brazil and they dump waste into the ocean, so think "green" world wide, not just the US.
Calco read my blog view my photos
Nov 20, 2008 | 2:37 AM

The waste can be used and it is reduced by about 85% the waste they are storing now is also low grade waste that could be reduced to a lesser quantity once depleted of all its values. this waste is much less than the tons of carbon monoxide dumped into the sky from burning coal.
gimini210 read my blog view my photos
Nov 20, 2008 | 9:29 AM

There is a very good reason why congress does not want to build more Nuclear plants. Look into how many are invested in solar and wind. Look at who is making millions by pushing one way and not the other.
Page 1 of 1


Write your comment below:




gimini210

I am a reformed democrat now republican and mother of 5, have 10 grandchildren and one greatgrand child. I have lived all over the US and love to sit on docks and fish. Waiting for the big one. I love my family and a good joke, reading and painting. My siblings all think I need to be taken care of as do my children and I'm the oldest so don't know why. I watch Fox 4 News because you are about the fairest all around on T.V.

Member Since: 6/28/2007


 

View All Photos


RSS: XMLWhat is RSS?