Community | June 07, 2009 | 6 comments

SF 100% ON the SOLAR GRID

source: http://dvice.com/archives/2008/06/japan_building.php

Image
sbove
Would you be willing to establish a 5 year challenge to BUY all of SF's electricity from SOLAR/WIND providers and become the world's FIRST major solar-electric-city? If NO, why not?

Rational for question: Using current technology, ll of SF's electricity (industrial, transportation, administrative, residential) can be generated by a solar array covering a very small portion of the CA Mojave Desert. A commitment from a major city for long term purchase of this power at guaranteed prices would provide much needed stimulus to get large-sale solar-electric underway in CA.
  1. groups:
  2. tags:
    Green Questions for Gavin Newsom
  3.     
    |

6 comments // SF 100% ON the SOLAR GRID

  • mario_a
  • mrmalone
    • 0
      mrmalone  

    • solar and wind do not make financial sense at this time because the technology is so inefficient vs. other options. it sounds good but it just doesn't work. it also takes a lot of power to transport energy. local power generation is best.

      has anyone looked into the environmental effects of covering large areas of desert with black material? i think the heat generation would be a serious problem and the amount of ground coverage is ugly and not too environmentally sound either since it blocks natural vegetation and would cause water run off issues.

      one huge source of power which is available now is the tidal power of that flows in and out of our bay every day! tidal turbines could be underwater and generate lots of power right now. screens or design should be in such a way to block or allow sea life to pass safely.

    • 2 years ago
  • bombastinator
    • 0
      bombastinator  

    • My understanding is that the only working large scale systems are solar thermal plants.

      "Thermal by the numbers
      Conventionally generated electricity ranges between 5 and 18 cents per kilowatt hour (the amount of money to get a kilowatt of power for an hour) but in most places it's below 10 cents, according to the Energy Information Agency. Solar thermal costs around 15 to 17 cents a kilowatt hour, according to statistics from Schott, a German company that makes solar thermal equipment." http://news.cnet.com/Shrinking-the-cost-for-solar-power/2100-11392_3-6182947.htm...
      California's average electrical cost is 12 to 13 cents assuming I read this graph right http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epm/table5_6_a.html

      So another way to ask this is "Are you willing to increase California electrical bills a minimum of 25% and probably cover a significant portion of the desert in the state with mirror systems to switch california to solar power"

      [EDIT] I might also add that 100% energy is doubly difficult due to the whole darkness at night problem.

    • 2 years ago
  • Ish05
    • 0
      Ish05  

    • Going with solar and wind energy for SF is plagued by a big problem.The land mass such a grid would occupy. This short video perfectly outlines that problem. I hope you watch it and leave me a comment on what you think.

      Why would you go with an inefficient energy policy?
      http://www.larouchepac.com/node/9296

    • 2 years ago
  • bombastinator
  • Ish05
    • 0
      Ish05  
    • Ish05:

      I understand that when the name of Lyndon Larouche is spoken, people tend to be turned off, or even laugh at the idea that any of his material could be reasonable. The material covered in the video is based on information gathered from specifications given by General Electric and General Atomics. This should not to be scoffed, just because it came from Larouche's organization. I'd hate for someone capable of distinguishing fact from fiction to simply dismiss this information solely on the fact that the material is published by the LarouchePAC. I'd appreciated your thoughts on it.

    • 2 years ago
from the community

top videos