Only 100 square miles of solar panels are required to power the entire United States

Indeed, what are we waiting for? Dams could be reduced allowing for normal fish production, costs could, not would, be much lower - and ideally this would be set up in two places - one goes out and the other comes on line. Even state by state for places with enough sun, this could be done and be much harder to take out.

What a wonderful concept! Five stars and blessings for posting this!

Nothing like Solar power as an actual power alternative will be possible. Battery tech has been developed for years that could power a home and car for days on minimal power has been severally hindered by Federal regulation due to Oil lobbies and Big Oil interest within the Gov. signing Regulations and strangling EPA guidelines.
Solar panel tec has been hindered to. The absolutely best panel On The Free Market has at most 25% turn out. Meaning a 100 watt panel at highest production turns out 25 watts of charge.
If the Government Wanted Solar to be Viable It Would Be.
NASAs 52 million dollar A DAY budget would surely have produced it. But NO all NASA produces for the public investment is an active Twitter account

I power my home, garage, and guest house with solar panels that doesn't exceed their footprint.

100 miles by 100 miles is 10,000 square miles.

You shouldn't centralise a power grid like that. Many downsides. Not least would be energy loss over the thousands of miles, long distance transmission, and terrorist or natural disasters on the plant.
Yea, over all its a dumb idea to implement it. The smart way is to decentralise and everyone have solar roof tiles plus battery walls.

Let's do it! Or, at least support Solar Energy. Cleaner air and water would be a nice thing to leave our Grandchildren

Forget zero point energy. It is free.

Hydro power is the chepest, cleaniest more renewable power in the United States.
"Hydropower is the most efficient way to generate electricity. Modern hydro turbines can convert as much as 90% of the available energy into electricity. The best fossil fuel plants are only about 50% efficient. (1)

In the U.S., hydropower is produced for an average of 0.85 cents per kilowatt-hour (kwh). This is about 50% the cost of nuclear, 40% the cost of fossil fuel, and 25% the cost of using natural gas."
[link to www.wvic.com]

You will see that the production cost of hydro power is a fraction the cost of any other power.

As for fish:

Environmental interests refuse to look at reasons for salmon population decrease other than the dams.

The Nez Perce Indian Hatchery bred salmon years ago that had great resistance to the stress of the Columbia River dams, but they were not allowed to release them.

Living in the Northwest, you are unaware of how cheap energy is for us here. Look at a national graph for energy costs and you will see,

Hydro produces enough energy to sell throughout the country, is non polluting and the ultimate renewable resource.

Hydro provides irrigation for close to 300 crops, which include apples, 70% of the nation's applrcrops.

If you are worried about the increase in the cost of food, why would you want to take out one of the nation's most productive agricultural regions?

Or you could just go off grid and have your own solar panels and battery storage....

Well, keep wishing. I think it is being supressed

10,000 square miles you igit.

Im sure youve been much more productive with your internet posts.

Tell us, what have you done lately that could even hold a tiny candle to what elon has accomplished?

Everyone should have their own power system guaranteed by the government, free from perpetual inflation, and
Jp morgan

Fuck the corporation

Fuck elon musk

Should vote to pay our taxes to ourselves so we can get something done

Let the debt makers pay it back themselves totally new deal

How many birds are you prepared to kill? Solar and wind farms kill thousands of birds every year.

Solar power does not power trucks, buses, trains, ships to move goods, food.

GND and AOC shit gets more stupid and stupid by the minute. Her handler Chakrabarti is shitting his hitech pants.

The older I get the more I realize that electricty is a bad thing for society.
It has allowed fucktards to over populate.
Keep life a bit on the hard side.

Soooo....1 ft x 1 ft = 10 square feet

Actually it is a matter of semantics....


100 miles x 100 miles = 100 miles square

The Area contained in 100 miles square is equal to 10,000 square miles

Last Edited by StopsniffinmeBrandon on 03/31/2019 04:18 PM

No, Pooka, The production cost of hydro is less than one cent per kilowat hour. Compare this with the cost of other energy generation sustems :

[link to www.wvic.com]

It is the most reliable power, not subject to the interruptions of solar.
From Planet Save:
"According to the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA), hydropower is the most flexible source of power generation available. It is also capable of responding to demand fluctuations in a short time sequence.

“Although other plants, notably conventional thermal power plants, can respond to load fluctuations, their response times are not as fast and often are not as flexible over their full output band. In addition to grid flexibility and security services (spinning reserve), hydropower dams with large reservoir storage be used to store energy over time to meet system peaks or demand decoupled from inflows. Storage can be over days, weeks, months, seasons or even years depending on the size of the reservoir.

...

“Hydropower is the only large-scale and cost-efficient storage technology available today. Despite promising developments in other energy storage technologies, hydropower is still the only technology offering economically viable large-scale storage. It is also a relatively efficient energy storage option.””"
[link to planetsave.com (secure)]

A chart on the above link show the relative costs of different types of energy show solar to be approximately 7 times that of hydro.

"THe above chart shows the relatively low cost of hydro in terms of maintenance, operations, and fuel costs when compared with other electricity sources and across a full project lifetime. For hydro projects, a longer lifespan (the Navigant study assumed 50 years) means not only are costs spread across a longer timeframe but also takes into account that the power generating equipment used at these facilities can often operate for long periods of time without needing major replacements or repairs."
[link to planetsave.com (secure)]

People, you have been lied to over and over and over again.

It would not be cheaper to replace hydro with solar or other electical generation means.

At this point, the combined contribution to the nation's energy grid of solar, wind, and biomass is less than 1% - .1% to b e exact.

In other words, practically nil.

If solar was that feasible, it would contribute at least 5% by now.

The solar lobby has been promising affordable solar in about 2 years since the 1970s. If this was a fact, we could all be enjoying the benefots of solar right now.

No. There are no zeros to add together, to put it simply.

You really should take an online math course, for your own good. You could be cheated so easily with the math skills you curently have. Seriously.

the solar power they use in the desert is not really solar panels
they heat oil with reflectors and use that hot oil, above the water boiling point, to make steam and run a traditional generator
since oil gets much hotter than water they can still produce electricity at night

My Math skills have always been minimal at best.

You couldn't have like solar dishes that has some type of protective blinds that you close when things like those you mention happen?

Problem is you relaxed the laws and you gave money to those that would not work.

With no incentive people wouldn't make babies to cash in.

What do you use to power your ego?