3 ms·

I'm not sure why wind and solar power are always mentioned together, other than they both are forms of "alt energy." From a U.S. perspective, solar power is le

I'm not sure why wind and solar power are always mentioned together, other than they both are forms of "alt energy." From a U.S. perspective, solar power is less productive in the eastern half of the U.S., so I'm not sure why we haven't just concentrated on blanketing stretches of desert in the U.S. West with solar farms. This is the highest-reward area, not attaching solar panels to someone's roof in Wisconsin. I think that focusing on high-yield areas with lots of sunlight might be one way to make costs fall. Done right, it might fairly well take care of much of our energy needs. Source: http://www.nrel.gov/gis/solar.html http://www.nrel.gov/gis/solar.html Conversely, I don't think wind power can come close to taking care of large percentages of our energy needs. It's subsidized, so it happens, but it's not The Answer (imho).

dredmorbius 12y ago
Solar and wind are the two most abundant, additionally scalable, and efficiently utilizeable forms of renewable/sustainable energy available. Solar is the most abundant, but on a density/device basis is somewhat less cost-effective than wind, which is preferable locations (not all) provides a high return for investment. Overall, wind energy is less abundant than solar (it's effectively a byproduct of solar insolation). Other renewables: geothermal, hydro, biomass, tidal, and wave power generally have issues with scalability, costs, or both. Geo, hydro, and biomass actually do already contribute significantly to energy budgets, and costs are fairly good, but their growth potential is limited. Tidal and wave power are limited and require large capital and operational expenses to be effectively utilized. Nuclear's a wildcard, though I'm generally skeptical. There are a number of sources which give detailed breakouts of renewable energy potential or possible scenarios. David MacKay's Sustainable Energy Without the Hot Air, and Jacobson & Delucchi's "Providing all global energy with wind, water, and solar power" give a pretty good overview. Turns out that with solar + wind and some form(s) of storage, you can approach a pretty good overall budget.

dredmorbius 12y ago

Solar and wind are the two most abundant, additionally scalable, and efficiently utilizeable forms of renewable/sustainable energy available. Solar is the most abundant, but on a density/device basis is somewhat less cost-effective than wind, which is preferable locations (not all) provides a high return for investment. Overall, wind energy is less abundant than solar (it's effectively a byproduct of solar insolation). Other renewables: geothermal, hydro, biomass, tidal, and wave power generally have issues with scalability, costs, or both. Geo, hydro, and biomass actually do already contribute significantly to energy budgets, and costs are fairly good, but their growth potential is limited. Tidal and wave power are limited and require large capital and operational expenses to be effectively utilized. Nuclear's a wildcard, though I'm generally skeptical. There are a number of sources which give detailed breakouts of renewable energy potential or possible scenarios. David MacKay's Sustainable Energy Without the Hot Air, and Jacobson & Delucchi's "Providing all global energy with wind, water, and solar power" give a pretty good overview. Turns out that with solar + wind and some form(s) of storage, you can approach a pretty good overall budget.