Post by Bill Z.Post by PaulJKPost by Bill Z.Post by kujebakPost by Bill Z.I know, but using the solar constant is OK - with 3.5 X 10^13 watts
for an area 100 miles by 100 miles, and a requirement of 8.51 X 10^11
watts (worst case), we only have to convert 2.43% to electric power,
which leaves an adequate safety margin for atmospheric absorption and
scattering. Didn't you bother to divide? :-)
With a solar cell efficiency of 20%, even with an 80% loss due to the
atmosphere (your 300 watt number), you'd still be at 4.2 percent -
well over the 2.43% that you need. So, a solar-collection area
equivalent to a square 100 miles on a side is enough for our projected
peak load.
Whether you like it or not, the main limitation is cost, and that is
falling due to improvements in the technology. We aren't yet at the
point where we would see a large shift to solar power, but we are
getting closer each year.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
100 square miles? Now there's a job making idea!
Perhaps you should start with basic arithmetic - a square 100 miles on
a side does not cover 100 square miles, but rather 10,000 square miles.
You seem to have a problem with numbers.
Now, who is the moron who has a problem with simple numbers!!!
You and Kujebak, obviously, for the reasons given below.
Post by PaulJKKujebak said 100 square miles, not 100 mile square.
He also said "256 million square meters" which is roughly
the area of a rectangle of 1 by 100 miles.
You need to learn to read: I had originally indicated a square 100
miles on a side and Kujebak turned that into 100 square miles in
I was commenting on kujebak's "100 square miles".
Post by Bill Z.his reply. I pointed out that he got it wrong - misinterpreting
what I had said.
Okay, you still don't understand what's going on here, do you.
I tell you what the real reason, for us (that is me and you) talking
cross-purposes like this, is.
Your English is not the same as our English over here.
When we say "mile", we mean a distance of approximately 1.6 km
When we say "square mile", we mean an area of approximately 2.6 km^2
When we say "100 square miles", we mean an area of one hundred of
those square miles, which is approximately 2600 km^2, that is
how gods meant it to be :-).
Of course, in real life, we don't say "mile" very often at all, we
have not much practical use for any of those archaic imperial
measurements like miles, feet, inches, gallons, etc.
When I say 100 square kilometers in our English it will *always*
mean an area of 100km^, for example, 10km by 10km square,
and it may absolutely *never* ever mean an area of 10000km^2,
a square 100km by 100km.
Post by Bill Z.Post by PaulJKPost by Bill Z.Sigh. How many window washers are being hired to maintain the solar
cells being installed around town on various roofs? Did it occur
to you that you can use a sprinkler system to wash the things off
as needed?
Come back when you have a serious argument.
You keep raving about unused US dessert like a demented
moron, how many countries around the world do you think
have hundreds of miles of dessert wasteland?
While some restaurants may have what could be called a "dessert
wasteland", various countries, including the U.S. have deserts.
Well, thanks for the correction. My English spelling isn't 100%,
especially when I write quickly as I did then. On purpose,
I don't use spell checkers.
English is not my first language, not even second, third, or fourth.
How good is your spelling in your fifth language?
Is it as bad as mine?
pjk
Post by Bill Z.And I wasn't "raving" - which in your case seems to mean that you
don't like the facts.