Skip to main content

View Diary: The most anti-solar reporter in the mainstream media? (75 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Deserts are good places to put solar collectors (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    RLMiller, SolarGuy, JeffW, jam
    The solar energy that strikes the earth is about 946 watts per hour per square meter (perpendicular to the rays).  There is NO place on earth where it is more than that -- it's the same on your house top as it is in the desert.
    because they tend to be cloudless and to not have interfering structures to cast unwanted shadows.  Lots of places get less than "about 946 watts per hour per square meter" because of clouds.

    Renewable energy brings national global security.     

    by Calamity Jean on Sun Nov 25, 2012 at 03:29:59 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  his comment doesn't make much sense (0+ / 0-)

      either from a DNI point of view or an economy of scale POV.

      Javelin, Jockey details, all posts, discontinue

      by jam on Mon Nov 26, 2012 at 01:28:25 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Deserts are good places to put solar collectors (0+ / 0-)

      Remotely sited solar loses as much or more in transmission as is gained by slightly higher insolation.  Transmission is costly ($10 + million/mile), highly inefficient and slow to permit and build.  The use of sulfur hexafluoride or SF6 in power transformers and circuit breakers contributes to GHG emissions as does digging up highly calcified (and carbon sequestering) desert soils.   We don't have time to repeat the same old energy mistakes folks.  Distributed point of use solar is cheaper, faster and smarter.  More at:


Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site